:liberalism:
Those fucking socialists and their famous lack of consideration for others SMDH
though, to be fair, most of the psychopaths I've met have been left of the democratic party.
see, they're self interested, and don't want to suffer and die, and don't give a fuck about anyone else. so they would like to live in a slightly less shitty world, even if they still want there to be exploitation.
I love this increasing media focus on “radicalization” and not right wing extremism! I’m sure this is a great thing that will not ultimately be bad for anyone left of the Democratic main stream!
nah it'll be fine. free bullets, luxury air, acute physical therapy. it'll be great. everything's fine.
BMO isn't really a mod, he's a co-chair of the professional internet poster's union, section 1312.
Because neoliberal capitalism has nothing to do with “group violence”, nosiree, just 70% of the worlds population being ground into dust for their entire lives
I think this is a convoluted way to say "cowards refuse to challenge the status quo"
At least it's getting dragged in the comments for being pseudoscience
Also /r/science: CEOs and politicians tend to be psychopaths and narcissists
People who lack consideration for others’ wellbeing are more prone to liberalism, suggests a new study, which found a link between psychopathic traits, antisocial tendencies and support for group violence.
[from: science]
wanna bet they found like 20% psychopathy in the average population, and 50% in radicals. But among those radicals the far right is like 95% while we're like 2%
Full Paper they're referencing:
'Radicalisation and individual differences: Disinhibition, boldness and meanness as predictors of support for radical collective action '
Tomasz Besta⁎ , Beata Pastwa-Wojciechowska, Michał Jaśkiewicz, Andrzej Piotrowski, Marcin Szulc University of Gdańsk, Poland
ABSTRACT
We conducted a study to answer the question of whether personality characteristics of nonclinical psychopathy (disinhibition, meanness, boldness) are associated with support for radical collective action (CA) and acceptance of group violence (N = 877). We introduced CA in three contexts: (a) respondents answered the question about CA on behalf of the country, (b) for the Independence March and its right-wing participants, or (c) for the For Our Freedom and Yours march and its left-wing participants. The results indicated that, of the three personality factors we examined, inhibition and meanness are associated with support for radical group actions (but not for moderate CA). Meanness is an important predictor of support for violent changes in the social system in the country. Disinhibition is related to support for non-normative activities for the right-wing and left-wing orga- nisations. Moreover, in the case of the right-wing demonstration, group identification was a moderator of the relationship between disinhibition and radical CA. These results are discussed in light of the interplay of individual differences, group dynamics and group norms that prescribe violent actions.
- Introduction
Collective action (CA) can be defined as action directed at im- proving the conditions of one's group. Models of CA based in social psychological research stress characteristics related to group processes as keys to explaining why people are involved in social movements. Group identification, injustice appraisal, and group efficacy are im- portant factors that explain motivation to engage in collective action (van Zomeren, Leach, & Spears, 2012). However, the role of individual differences in shaping the willingness to engage in CA has been less explored.
1.1. Personality and acting together
The need to integrate research from social psychology and in- dividual differences in order to examine motivation to support social movements was expressed outright by Duncan (2012). She enlisted numerous personality characteristics linked to action on behalf of one's group. Of them, authoritarianism and social dominance orientation (SDO) were addressed in several studies. For example, Thomas et al. (2019) show that SDO is an important variable in shaping the soli- darity-motivated responses to perceived injustice. Authoritarianism was related to both willingness to fight for national in-groups and accep- tance of violent social change (Besta, Szulc, & Jaskiewicz, 2015). The integrated model proposed by Duncan (2012) suggests that individual differences are antecedents to the group processes related to social identification formation and group efficacy. It proposes also that group consciences serve to mediate or moderate the personality-CA relationship. Based on the theocratizing of Duncan, the present study is an attempt to integrate research from the area of radical behaviours, conducted from the perspective of social psychology and personality traits analyses.
1.2. Disinhibition, boldness and meanness
Dispositional factors related to antisocial behaviours are not often included in the research of violent and radical collective actions, al- though results on the self-reported scales of psychopathy were link to SDO, prejudice, perceived intergroup threats, dehumanisation, and sexist and violent attitudes (e.g. Methot-Jones, Book, & Gauthier, 2019). Based on the results of research and clinical studies on the an- tisocial behaviours of psychopaths, inclusion of traits such as disin- hibition, boldness and meanness could complement current models of radical collective actions. The Triarchic conceptualisation ofpsychopathy was recently developed (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009). This operationalisation understands psychopathy as the inter- play between three factors: disinhibition (weak impulse control and externalisation), boldness (fearless dominance or daringness) and meanness (callousness or cold-heartedness). This model has been useful for assessing psychopathic traits in non-clinical samples (van Dongen, Drislane, Nijman, Soe-Agnie, & van Marle, 2017). Research shows that disinhibition is linked to impulsivity and hostile tendencies, boldness is associated with narcissism and thrill-seeking and meanness is asso- ciated with Machiavellianism and low empathy (e.g., Kyranides, Fanti, Sikki, & Patrick, 2017; Sellbom & Phillips, 2013). Instrumental use of aggression is especially important for understanding radical CA, as it is linked to the use of violence to obtain one's goals. Research has shown that meanness and disinhibition are related to instrumental proactive aggression in both the non-clinical general population and forensic samples (van Dongen et al., 2017).
1.3. Aim and research questions
There are two main goals of our research. First, we examine if non- clinical psychopathic traits are related to radical CA and support for violent social change, even when accounting for other key variables (identification, efficacy, injustice appraisal). Second, following Duncan (2012), we examine if the relationship between disinhibition (related to weak impulse control) and radical CA is moderated by group identifi- cation. We investigate the willingness to act on behalf of three various groups: the country (abstract entity without clearly defined norms, as it is composed of various sub-groups with different values and normative systems); right-wing groups related to the Independence March in Po- land (an event organised by far-right organisations with a history of clashes with the police and violence directed towards out-groups); and left-wing groups related to the For Our Freedom and Yours demon- stration (with a mostly anti-fascist agenda). To explore various types of support for radical actions, we included three different measures: ra- dical CA (which concentrate acting with others in a radical way), willingness to fight and die (which measure behavioural tendency to act aggressively to defend in-group and in-group members), and support for violent social-change in the country. To examine, if the link between disinhibition, boldness, meanness and group actions occurs only when radical actions are considered, we included also measure of moderate (i.e. peaceful) CA.
- Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
Participants were recruited at various universities and colleges in Northern Poland by Authors or research assistants. All questionnaires were paper-pencil based. All participants were informed about the goal of the research and voluntarily agreed to take part in the study. Anonymity of the participants was ensured (we collected no personal data). A total of 877 participants (458 women, 23 missing data; Mage = 22.03, SD = 5.81) completed the questionnaire. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Respondents an- swered the question about willingness to join collective actions on be- half of (a) the country, (b) for the Independence March and its right- wing participants, or (c) for the For Our Freedom and Yours march and its left-wing participants.
2.2. Measures
Participants indicated their responses on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree), unless stated otherwise. Group related measures were always adapted to be relevant to the group mention in each condition (country or left wing group or right wing group).
2.2.1. Disinhibition, boldness, and meanness
Trait psychopathy was measured by the Polish version of the Triarchical Measure of Psychopathy (Pilch & Górnik-Durose, 2016). This scale is a valid psychometric tool for measuring psychopathic traits in non-clinical and non-criminal subjects. Participants indicated their responses on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = True, 4 = False) and three sub- scales, all of which have been proven to be reliable: boldness, meanness and disinhibition (α = 0.83, α = 0.86 and α = 0.81, respectively).
2.2.2. Group related measures
A 14-item group multicomponent group identification scale was used (Leach et al., 2008) (α = 0.96) to measure identification with people who live in Poland or share the participants' opinion on right- wing or left-wing ideas (e.g., depending on the condition, participants answer question like ‘I feel a bond with other Poles’ or ‘I feel a bond with people engaging in the Independence March’). For group efficacy (3 items, α = 0.92) and perceived injustice (2 items, r = 0.83) mea- sures of these variables were based on the measures used previously (van Zomeren et al., 2012).
2.2.3. Actions on behalf of the group
For moderate (4 items, α = 0.89) and radical (2 items, r = 0.75) CA, we asked participants to describe their behavioural tendencies (e.g., willingness to join peaceful demonstrations or occupy buildings). We also used the 7-item scale by Swann, Gómez, Seyle, Morales, and Huici (2009) to measure the willingness to fight and die for one's group (e.g., ‘I would fight someone physically threatening another in-group member’; α = 0.92). A 3-item scale was used to assess acceptance of violent change in the social system (Besta et al., 2015) (e.g., ‘To es- tablish better laws in Poland, one needs to use violence’; α = 0.89).
- Results
3.1. Correlations and regression analyses
To test the first research question, a series of linear regression analyses with the enter method were conducted. Disinhibition, boldness and meanness; identification; group efficacy; and injustice appraisal were entered to predict radical CA, willingness to fight and die and support for violent social change. Table 1 shows the results for three measures of radical group ac- tions. Disinhibition was related to radical CA on behalf of the In- dependence March but not the left-wing march, and it was a significant predictor of willingness to fight and die for the in-group in both con- texts (for the right-wing and left-wing groups). Meanness was a sig- nificant predictor of support for violent social change in all three samples. We compare the strength of correlations between disinhibition and radical actions on behalf of Poland, right-wing groups and left-wing groups. Disinhibition was linked to willingness to join radical CA on behalf of right-wing groups (r = 0.23) more strongly than to act on behalf of the country (r = 0.08) (z = 1.94, p = .03) or left-wing groups (r = 0.08) (z = 1.64, p = .05). Disinhibition was also linked more strongly to the willingness to fight and die for a right-wing group (r = 0.24) than for the country (r = 0.07) (z = 2.16, p = .02), but not for a left-wing group (r = 0.16; z = 0.86, p = .20).
3.2. Moderation analyses
We conducted a series of moderation analyses (Process macro, model 1; 10,000 bootstraps). When asked about CA on behalf of the country, there was no significant relation between disinhibition and radical actions (and no moderations by identification). There was a significant relation between disinhibition and willingness to fight and die for the left-wing in-group but no moderation by identification. In the context of right-wing groups, disinhibition relates to both radical CA and willingness to fight and die. Identification with a groupmoderates these relations. Interaction between disinhibition x identi- fication B = 0.28, p = .01 for radical CA (indirect effects: low identi- fication B = 0.26 [−0.22;0.74], average identification B = 0.67 [0.34;1.00], high identification B = 1.08 [0.63;1.53]) and B = 0.30, p < .001 for willingness to fight (indirect effects: low identification B = 0.13 [−0.22;0.48], average identification B = 0.56 [0.32;0.81], high identification B = 1.00 [0.68;1.33]). Among weak identifiers, the relation between disinhibition and radical actions where nonsignificant but became significant when strong identifiers were considered (Fig. 1).
- Discussion
Our research shows that disinhibition and meanness, considered as dispositional individual differences, are related to various forms of support for radical group actions. We also have preliminary support for the role of a group's definitions and norms. That is, people with tem- peramental predispositions could be more prone to support violent actions on behalf of the groups that normalise violence. This fits well with the present understanding of radicalisation. For example, if the reason for radicalisation is a disproportionate commitment to ends that is linked to the devaluation or suppression of alternative (i.e., norma- tive, peaceful) considerations, then people who more easily devaluate alternatives (i.e., because of a lack of consideration of others' well- being) should be more prone to radicalisation. Similarly, people for whom radical behaviours are not only a means to highly valued ends but are also intrinsically reinforcing (i.e., these radical behaviours sa- tisfy the need for thrill-seeking) should be more prone to radicalisation. Here we see the important role of individual differences. Meanness was repeatedly (in three independent samples) related to acceptance of violent social change. This is aligned with clinical and personality research as meanness is understood as empowerment through cruelty and deficient empathy (Patrick et al., 2009). With such disdain for close attachments with others and engagement in active exploitativeness and confrontation, the positive attitudes towards vio- lence could be strengthened by the lack of considerations about the possible human cost of this violence and defiance of authority. Interplay between group identification and disinhibition has been noted as especially relevant for understanding willingness to engage in radical actions on behalf of the right-wing group. Previous studies pointed to the group norms and values as factors linked to the decision to use radical means. Studies show that group radicalisation and po- larisation are largely determined by important group norms, and these norms are often responsible for uninhibited behaviour (if that is a part of a prevailing group norm). In the context of CA, it is possible that impulsive individuals with hostile tendencies will collaborate with other people in a group, especially when group norms justify the violent means chosen by them. In this sense, radical collective actions might be a way to achieve personal benefits (e.g., allowing them to explicitly express a lack of restraint or disregard for others, namely out-group members). The interplay between group norms and individual differ- ences should be explored in future research. CRediT authorship contribution statement Tomasz Besta: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Project administration. Beata Pastwa-Wojciechowska: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data cura- tion, Writing - review & editing. Michał Jaśkiewicz:Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Andrzej Piotrowski: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing - review & editing. Marcin Szulc: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing - re- view & editing.
Appendix A. Details on participants, measures and procedure
One item attention check was included in the questionnaire to examine if participants follow the instruction: ‘This is an attention-checking question. We are checking whether people filling out the survey do not answer at random. Please, mark the number 2 below’. We included in the final analyses only people who do not failed the attention-checking question (877). Of those, some of the participants failed to answer items from specific scales, thus number of participants in each analysis may vary. Table 1 includes descriptive statistics. for the variables used in research (and number of participants that answered items from each measure).
Table 1 (Regression Analysis): https://ibb.co/qgZXrdV
Graphs (Radical CA; Fight & Die): https://ibb.co/pXcFPnX
Table (Descriptive Stats.): https://ibb.co/tJMR2jd
These links should stop working in 48 hours.
