Everyday Saints
March 22, 2019 8:36 AM Subscribe
Psychologists have defined a "light triad" of personality traits. The team led by Scott Barry Kaufman has investigated what exemplifies the best of humanity, as opposed to the worst of humanity that is captured by the "dark triad" (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism). The three traits that constitute the "light triad" are Kantianism (“treating people as ends unto themselves, not as mere means to an end”); Humanism (“valuing the dignity and worth of each individual”); and Faith in Humanity (“believing in the fundamental goodness of humans”).
Maintaining faith or hope is a tough one. But it's important.
posted by JamesBay at 8:41 AM on March 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by JamesBay at 8:41 AM on March 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
You can take the Light Triad test yourself and see how you score.
posted by Cash4Lead at 8:45 AM on March 22, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by Cash4Lead at 8:45 AM on March 22, 2019 [16 favorites]
Huh, I'm glad to see this concept of Machiavellianism articulated. I'd never seen it described as a personality type but it certainly encapsulates a quality that I find poisonous (although you can see how people who become music/art/publishing starts must have some of this to get where they got)
posted by latkes at 8:51 AM on March 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by latkes at 8:51 AM on March 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
According to the test I'm about 53% light. Sounds right. But then, it would be pretty easy to game the test to make myself look better and ironically enough, if I were truly unprincipled, I'd probably do just that.
posted by emjaybee at 8:52 AM on March 22, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 8:52 AM on March 22, 2019 [12 favorites]
As to the positive traits, you can see the culture-bound biases of the people who created this rubric. I mean, the first trait I think of as having social value is collaborativeness, which is different that just having faith in the good of others.
posted by latkes at 8:52 AM on March 22, 2019 [28 favorites]
posted by latkes at 8:52 AM on March 22, 2019 [28 favorites]
The researchers also report that only 36 subjects have scored the maximum value on all three traits.
posted by McCoy Pauley at 8:54 AM on March 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by McCoy Pauley at 8:54 AM on March 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
As soon as it was articulated, I knew where I would fail.
It wasn't Kantianism (I try to make sure that the people I know are in service of their best selves) nor humanism (I value the dignity and worth of people at least as much as I value my own goals or myself). It was Faith in Humanity, of which after these past few years of corruption, self-interest, hands-off policy or even naziism on a global scale, I have virtually none of left.
If 40-45% of those around me can endorse Trump, such ludicrous demonstration of self-interest and disinterest in humanity, and with only 6-11% left to isolate tendencies away from issues of the common good like vaccination or climate change, how can I possibly have faith that the majority of people truly have humanity's best interests in mind?
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 8:59 AM on March 22, 2019 [61 favorites]
It wasn't Kantianism (I try to make sure that the people I know are in service of their best selves) nor humanism (I value the dignity and worth of people at least as much as I value my own goals or myself). It was Faith in Humanity, of which after these past few years of corruption, self-interest, hands-off policy or even naziism on a global scale, I have virtually none of left.
If 40-45% of those around me can endorse Trump, such ludicrous demonstration of self-interest and disinterest in humanity, and with only 6-11% left to isolate tendencies away from issues of the common good like vaccination or climate change, how can I possibly have faith that the majority of people truly have humanity's best interests in mind?
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 8:59 AM on March 22, 2019 [61 favorites]
Faith in Humanity (“believing in the fundamental goodness of humans”)
You can boil that down to a single word, surely. Pardon my French, but perhaps Naïveté?
Extending Narcissism to the whole species hardly makes it a virtue.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:04 AM on March 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
You can boil that down to a single word, surely. Pardon my French, but perhaps Naïveté?
Extending Narcissism to the whole species hardly makes it a virtue.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:04 AM on March 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
Yep, I EAT TAPAS, the choice of Faith in Humanity in a scientific personality study is really surprising to me, and I'm going to hunt down the paper to see if they used a broad enough sample to validate their methods. I have a nasty suspicion that underrepresented minorities and economically disadvantaged people would do "worse" at this task. There is growing research suggesting that people who came from less well advantaged backgrounds have learned a different type of cause-and-effect relationship in the world compared to people who are better off. As a result, disadvantaged groups are less willing to take (financial) risks, and are more negatively impacted by losses (can you blame them?) Extrapolating from this, it's not hard to assume their faith in humanity would be lower, that they might be less trusting, and that they might be more self-protective, which could express as selfish on this test.
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 9:07 AM on March 22, 2019 [30 favorites]
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 9:07 AM on March 22, 2019 [30 favorites]
These, particularly the last, are just what the dark triangulons look for in a mark.
posted by rodlymight at 9:15 AM on March 22, 2019 [14 favorites]
posted by rodlymight at 9:15 AM on March 22, 2019 [14 favorites]
The test questions were overly simplistic, extremely easy to game, and super focused on individuality and kind of a western cultural mindset.
A better test would have like 20 hypothetical situations and 3-5 possible responses, each response with its own set of weights on the tripod (because it's just a tripod).
--
In my view the three poisons are: uncontrolled desire/greed, uncontrolled fear/rejection, and willful ignorance.
The three elixirs are: generosity (giving oneself), compassion (empathy/taking others into oneself), and knowledge (wisdom).
Here's a photography project I did a few years ago with actors interpreting these: Poison | Elixir.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:16 AM on March 22, 2019 [36 favorites]
A better test would have like 20 hypothetical situations and 3-5 possible responses, each response with its own set of weights on the tripod (because it's just a tripod).
--
In my view the three poisons are: uncontrolled desire/greed, uncontrolled fear/rejection, and willful ignorance.
The three elixirs are: generosity (giving oneself), compassion (empathy/taking others into oneself), and knowledge (wisdom).
Here's a photography project I did a few years ago with actors interpreting these: Poison | Elixir.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:16 AM on March 22, 2019 [36 favorites]
The researchers also report that only 36 subjects have scored the maximum value on all three traits.
Put them in a house, wire it with TV cameras, and we've got ourselves a reality show!
posted by BungaDunga at 9:24 AM on March 22, 2019 [15 favorites]
Put them in a house, wire it with TV cameras, and we've got ourselves a reality show!
posted by BungaDunga at 9:24 AM on March 22, 2019 [15 favorites]
It was Faith in Humanity, of which after these past few years of corruption, self-interest, hands-off policy or even naziism on a global scale, I have virtually none of left
I kept thinking about how these questions would look to someone with an extensive trauma history (which is, actually, not all that uncommon)
spoiler: pretty different
posted by schadenfrau at 9:26 AM on March 22, 2019 [33 favorites]
I kept thinking about how these questions would look to someone with an extensive trauma history (which is, actually, not all that uncommon)
spoiler: pretty different
posted by schadenfrau at 9:26 AM on March 22, 2019 [33 favorites]
Here's the actual study. Of note is that the four samples used for the study were 80-89% white (though the authors acknowledge this as a limitation: "Additionally, further research is required to assess the generalizability of the findings to a wider range of cultures (e.g., non-English speaking countries), as well as races and ethnicities.") Income is positively correlated with the Light Triad (though the Dark Triad is too, to a lesser degree).
posted by Cash4Lead at 9:26 AM on March 22, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by Cash4Lead at 9:26 AM on March 22, 2019 [9 favorites]
Is there a test about how framing socially beneficial traits as "light" and socially harmful traits as "dark" draws from and reinforces white supremacy, colonialism, colorism, and anti-Black racism?
posted by overglow at 9:38 AM on March 22, 2019 [62 favorites]
posted by overglow at 9:38 AM on March 22, 2019 [62 favorites]
So, basically the light triad is the opposite of everything and everybody involved in reality TV?
posted by e-man at 9:38 AM on March 22, 2019
posted by e-man at 9:38 AM on March 22, 2019
Wow, that quote about the samples, that's... that's just bad science. If you can reasonably justify an assumption that race is not a relevant variable , or if you qualify your results up front by noting the specific population in which they're demonstrated, that's fine. But if you work in a field where there's meaningful data to suggest that race (and the other factors listed) matter in your dependent variable, and you DON'T acknowledge the limitations/specificity of your findings up front (rather than in the discussion)... that's bad.
Paper Title : People show no significant patterns of hormone levels on monthly scales.
Methods : Research was conducted with a sample of Eleventy-Billion people, 90% Male.
Discussion : "Additionally further research is required to assess the generalizability of the findings to a wider range of X and Y chromosome variation."
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 9:44 AM on March 22, 2019 [8 favorites]
Paper Title : People show no significant patterns of hormone levels on monthly scales.
Methods : Research was conducted with a sample of Eleventy-Billion people, 90% Male.
Discussion : "Additionally further research is required to assess the generalizability of the findings to a wider range of X and Y chromosome variation."
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 9:44 AM on March 22, 2019 [8 favorites]
the lightsabers decorating the landing page of the test Cash4Lead posted really bolster my confidence in this science.
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:49 AM on March 22, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:49 AM on March 22, 2019 [16 favorites]
Yeah, but how many Good Place points do you get for taking this test?
posted by basalganglia at 10:01 AM on March 22, 2019 [19 favorites]
posted by basalganglia at 10:01 AM on March 22, 2019 [19 favorites]
Hmmm, I would like to see the rest of the Character Alignment Chart filled in here. As a True Neutral*, I'm curious what my three traits would be.
*Please understand that True Neutral does not imply centrism. This message brought to you by the Council For Neutral Planet.
posted by Phyltre at 10:01 AM on March 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
*Please understand that True Neutral does not imply centrism. This message brought to you by the Council For Neutral Planet.
posted by Phyltre at 10:01 AM on March 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
You can take the Light Triad test yourself and see how you score.
I got high Faith in Humanity and Humanism, but a totally even split between Kantianism/Machiavellianism. Which (based on how they define these things) makes sense to me, as a person who struggled with extreme social anxiety when I was younger. I was very preoccupied with how other people perceived me, which spurred me to look for ways to influence my relationships with them to make them like me more. These days I'm mostly over the social anxiety thing, but the tendency remains. It doesn't feel particularly "dark" to me, though.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:05 AM on March 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
I got high Faith in Humanity and Humanism, but a totally even split between Kantianism/Machiavellianism. Which (based on how they define these things) makes sense to me, as a person who struggled with extreme social anxiety when I was younger. I was very preoccupied with how other people perceived me, which spurred me to look for ways to influence my relationships with them to make them like me more. These days I'm mostly over the social anxiety thing, but the tendency remains. It doesn't feel particularly "dark" to me, though.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:05 AM on March 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
As far as "faith in humanity" is concerned: I think that "faith in humanity" is important as far as believing the good intentions and good nature of one's nearest and dearest. Not having much faith in Trump supporters is one thing, but being defensive and suspicious of one's spouse - or, worse, one's children - is going to lead to divorce and estrangement. There are people who believe in corporal punishment for actual babies (child abuse content warning) because of their belief in the bad nature of their kids.
I think you pretty much have to believe in the basic goodness and kind intentions of family, friends, neighbors and coworkers if you want to be on good terms with them and not just tolerated out of duty or because you have something to offer. Take the MRA's for instance - their discourse is full of the innate evil, perfidy and untrustworthiness of women. Of course they're not going to have successful relationships, because who wants to be a part of that? And that belief in certain Others being innately bad and untrustworthy drives gender and racial violence.
No, you don't have to have a huge heart for all humanity, but you kind of DO have to like and trust and believe in the goodness of at least those close to you if you want friends and adult kids who aren't estranged from you.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 10:06 AM on March 22, 2019 [23 favorites]
I think you pretty much have to believe in the basic goodness and kind intentions of family, friends, neighbors and coworkers if you want to be on good terms with them and not just tolerated out of duty or because you have something to offer. Take the MRA's for instance - their discourse is full of the innate evil, perfidy and untrustworthiness of women. Of course they're not going to have successful relationships, because who wants to be a part of that? And that belief in certain Others being innately bad and untrustworthy drives gender and racial violence.
No, you don't have to have a huge heart for all humanity, but you kind of DO have to like and trust and believe in the goodness of at least those close to you if you want friends and adult kids who aren't estranged from you.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 10:06 AM on March 22, 2019 [23 favorites]
Sorry, psychologists, but it's at least another millennium before you get to reliably attach personality traits with morality. Your track record there is that bad.
Also. I'm chaotic good, hopefully. Lawful good is the most terrifying alignment on the chart.
posted by East14thTaco at 10:08 AM on March 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
Also. I'm chaotic good, hopefully. Lawful good is the most terrifying alignment on the chart.
posted by East14thTaco at 10:08 AM on March 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
Goddammit, I want to take personality psychology seriously, but they keep doing crap like this.
posted by biogeo at 10:08 AM on March 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 10:08 AM on March 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
I'm cautiously optimistic about research like this getting some traction, and hopefully it generates more robust studies to clarify the picture. Because some people might not realize just how political the publication process can get. I'm keenly aware of the "file drawer" research related to this topic, although that rant is more suited to the recent statistical significance thread.
It's also good to see the acknowledgment of how orthogonal these dimensions potentially are. One file drawer article I'm thinking of in particular looked exactly at things like "What does a psychopath with faith in humanity look like? (Gandhi?)" or "What does a Machiavellian humanist look like? (A mafioso?)"
Yes, this test is easy to game, but so is every other self-reported psychology scale. The only real barrier is how honestly you can force yourself to respond, which has its own implications for psychological research in general. (Again, see also: the statistical significance thread.) And regarding the sample, practically all psychology research is based on the convenient sample of college students from the given research university and should be taken with a grain of salt. But the tendency to use MTurk or trying to glean anything from responses received on your personal website presents a different set of problems.
That said, does everyone on the Light Side get a picture of Yoda, or is it actually doing the "which Star Wars character are you?" thing based on your specific range of characteristics? Because, like mentioned upthread, I had high humanism and Kantianism but absolutely cratered faith in humanity. Which I guess could be symbolized by a little green man who exiles himself to a swamp planet but is still willing to help the occasional Jedi.
posted by Arson Lupine at 10:11 AM on March 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
It's also good to see the acknowledgment of how orthogonal these dimensions potentially are. One file drawer article I'm thinking of in particular looked exactly at things like "What does a psychopath with faith in humanity look like? (Gandhi?)" or "What does a Machiavellian humanist look like? (A mafioso?)"
Yes, this test is easy to game, but so is every other self-reported psychology scale. The only real barrier is how honestly you can force yourself to respond, which has its own implications for psychological research in general. (Again, see also: the statistical significance thread.) And regarding the sample, practically all psychology research is based on the convenient sample of college students from the given research university and should be taken with a grain of salt. But the tendency to use MTurk or trying to glean anything from responses received on your personal website presents a different set of problems.
That said, does everyone on the Light Side get a picture of Yoda, or is it actually doing the "which Star Wars character are you?" thing based on your specific range of characteristics? Because, like mentioned upthread, I had high humanism and Kantianism but absolutely cratered faith in humanity. Which I guess could be symbolized by a little green man who exiles himself to a swamp planet but is still willing to help the occasional Jedi.
posted by Arson Lupine at 10:11 AM on March 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
Let's stop and ponder the participant who scored a 4/5 on the Dark Triad while simultaneously scoring a ~4.5/5 on the Light Triad.
"Everyday saints," indeed.
posted by belarius at 10:12 AM on March 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
"Everyday saints," indeed.
posted by belarius at 10:12 AM on March 22, 2019 [4 favorites]
Apparently I'm a Kantian psychopath, which I suppose means I treat everyone with equal contempt. I didn't even realize I'm actually a cat.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 10:21 AM on March 22, 2019 [30 favorites]
posted by Pyrogenesis at 10:21 AM on March 22, 2019 [30 favorites]
As far as "faith in humanity" is concerned: I think that "faith in humanity" is important as far as believing the good intentions and good nature of one's nearest and dearest.
Not even just "nearest and dearest." For me, it's like this - I tend to assume good intentions in others unless shown otherwise. I'm more likely than most of my friends to say, "well, sure, [person we know] has [irritating trait] but there could be any number of reasons for that," or "yeah that operator I was just talking to was super unhelpful, but I'm sure that call center is a shitty place to work and I don't take it personally," or whatever.
I know a lot of people who immediately jump to the most negative interpretation of other peoples' actions, and that mindset just doesn't match mine. I talked about this with a former boyfriend who was more on that side of things, and he said essentially that if you don't expect good from people, you won't be disappointed and will sometimes be pleasantly surprised.
I understand that perspective, and I think it's largely an accident of genetics and upbringing that I feel differently. But -- this is sort of hard to articulate -- looking for the best in people doesn't mean I'm disappointed or let down or disillusioned when I don't find it. I know that not everyone fits my definition of a good person. But I tend to forgive people for being people, I guess. And even though there are awful awful people in the world, I don't think that's the default state of the human race or something we can never improve on as a species.
In some ways I think that ex was more of an idealist than me -- he expected people to be a certain way and it bothered him when they weren't (and we're not talking about nazi-level Bad People here, just general jerks and flakes and so forth). But a big part of my "faith in humanity" comes from meeting people where they are and being willing to look for their good traits as much as, or more than, their bad ones.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:22 AM on March 22, 2019 [44 favorites]
Not even just "nearest and dearest." For me, it's like this - I tend to assume good intentions in others unless shown otherwise. I'm more likely than most of my friends to say, "well, sure, [person we know] has [irritating trait] but there could be any number of reasons for that," or "yeah that operator I was just talking to was super unhelpful, but I'm sure that call center is a shitty place to work and I don't take it personally," or whatever.
I know a lot of people who immediately jump to the most negative interpretation of other peoples' actions, and that mindset just doesn't match mine. I talked about this with a former boyfriend who was more on that side of things, and he said essentially that if you don't expect good from people, you won't be disappointed and will sometimes be pleasantly surprised.
I understand that perspective, and I think it's largely an accident of genetics and upbringing that I feel differently. But -- this is sort of hard to articulate -- looking for the best in people doesn't mean I'm disappointed or let down or disillusioned when I don't find it. I know that not everyone fits my definition of a good person. But I tend to forgive people for being people, I guess. And even though there are awful awful people in the world, I don't think that's the default state of the human race or something we can never improve on as a species.
In some ways I think that ex was more of an idealist than me -- he expected people to be a certain way and it bothered him when they weren't (and we're not talking about nazi-level Bad People here, just general jerks and flakes and so forth). But a big part of my "faith in humanity" comes from meeting people where they are and being willing to look for their good traits as much as, or more than, their bad ones.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:22 AM on March 22, 2019 [44 favorites]
As a True Neutral*, I'm curious what my three traits would be.
I assume they would include a lust for gold and power.
posted by mordax at 10:27 AM on March 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
I assume they would include a lust for gold and power.
posted by mordax at 10:27 AM on March 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
overglow - they really should have chosen better descriptive terminology - back to "dark" versus "light" just doesn't help things.
Definitely a good point (and while I hate to link to Facebook, I am making an exception for this)
posted by jkaczor at 10:32 AM on March 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
Definitely a good point (and while I hate to link to Facebook, I am making an exception for this)
posted by jkaczor at 10:32 AM on March 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
Faith in Humanity (“believing in the fundamental goodness of humans”)
This seems to me to be just optimism. I instinctively want to say I am more of a pessimist but further reflection suggests I am more a disappointed optimist.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 10:52 AM on March 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
This seems to me to be just optimism. I instinctively want to say I am more of a pessimist but further reflection suggests I am more a disappointed optimist.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 10:52 AM on March 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
One of the questions: "I prefer honesty over charm"
I want an option for, "I prefer those who recognize that honesty and charm are not dichotomous, and that we can and should aim for truth-and-love."
I'm having a lot of opinions about this study.
posted by meese at 11:20 AM on March 22, 2019 [14 favorites]
I want an option for, "I prefer those who recognize that honesty and charm are not dichotomous, and that we can and should aim for truth-and-love."
I'm having a lot of opinions about this study.
posted by meese at 11:20 AM on March 22, 2019 [14 favorites]
Like showbiz_liz, I tend to assume that if people are mean, cruel, or shitty, they have an underlying reason that can explain one-shot bad behavior away. So I did okay in the faith in humanity part. Where I did very poorly was the Machiavellian area. After decades in the workforce, I can't help but think of how to phrase things, present ideas, and shape tasks so that the people around me will actually want to help me. My instinct is to give them honesty and clarity. But I've learned that people will not help you just because you ask and they sure as hell won't go out of their way to do things differently unless you can demonstrate how it makes their life better.
I mean, I have learned to be charming and manipulate people because otherwise nothing gets accomplished.
posted by teleri025 at 11:24 AM on March 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
I mean, I have learned to be charming and manipulate people because otherwise nothing gets accomplished.
posted by teleri025 at 11:24 AM on March 22, 2019 [11 favorites]
You really think that people are fundamentally good, but that a violently racist status quo is being maintained by...happenstance?
Not happenstance, power structures. To me, having faith in humanity doesn't mean the same thing as being satisfied with the status quo - it just means I think the status quo exists for reasons other than "people are bad, full stop," and that I believe the status quo can be changed. To me, not having faith in humanity would mean believing that there was no point in trying to change things.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:33 AM on March 22, 2019 [18 favorites]
Not happenstance, power structures. To me, having faith in humanity doesn't mean the same thing as being satisfied with the status quo - it just means I think the status quo exists for reasons other than "people are bad, full stop," and that I believe the status quo can be changed. To me, not having faith in humanity would mean believing that there was no point in trying to change things.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:33 AM on March 22, 2019 [18 favorites]
Can't wait for this research to be adopted, regurgitated, bastardized and ultimately vilified by the business world. Coming soon to a dystopian TED talk.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 12:15 PM on March 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Foci for Analysis at 12:15 PM on March 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
I always wonder about the self-tests, leaving all else aside. Most of the really, genuinely good people I know are likely to say "do I strongly agree that I don't manipulate people? How carefully am I evaluating my own behavior?" rather than "I believe I don't manipulate people, good job me!" And then there are people who are very good people but don't think highly of themselves, etc.
posted by Frowner at 12:16 PM on March 22, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 12:16 PM on March 22, 2019 [16 favorites]
The discussion around "Faith in Humanity" is illustrative of the problem I had with just about every question on the test, in one way or another: To answer honestly, you have to not just be honest with yourself about yourself, you also have to dive into the various things each question could mean, and then pick one, and then judge yourself against that standard.
So, to me, "having faith in humanity" has nothing to do with any inherent traits or with what motivates your behaviors, but rather whether people exist in significant numbers who work to maintain what I believe to be evil. I believe that there's no such thing as people being born inherently good or inherently evil, so to make sense of the question I have to ask, "Do people who do harm to other people exist, regardless of how they got there?" Since harmful people obviously exist, I get knocked out of "Faith in Humanity" despite the fact that I also believe people in general can be expected to do the right thing in general, mostly.
Have I manipulated people to get what I want? Sure! I spent a lot of years adopting a plummy voice with a totally weird stab at a midatlantic accent in order to keep people from realizing I'm a hick from the sticks. And it worked! I fail to see how that could possibly be a bad thing, though.
And so on.
posted by mattwan at 12:57 PM on March 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
So, to me, "having faith in humanity" has nothing to do with any inherent traits or with what motivates your behaviors, but rather whether people exist in significant numbers who work to maintain what I believe to be evil. I believe that there's no such thing as people being born inherently good or inherently evil, so to make sense of the question I have to ask, "Do people who do harm to other people exist, regardless of how they got there?" Since harmful people obviously exist, I get knocked out of "Faith in Humanity" despite the fact that I also believe people in general can be expected to do the right thing in general, mostly.
Have I manipulated people to get what I want? Sure! I spent a lot of years adopting a plummy voice with a totally weird stab at a midatlantic accent in order to keep people from realizing I'm a hick from the sticks. And it worked! I fail to see how that could possibly be a bad thing, though.
And so on.
posted by mattwan at 12:57 PM on March 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
Yeah this test impressed me less than some "What Star Wars character are you?" Facebook quizzes in its insight. Do I have faith in humanity? Dude, I'm an internet forum moderator. Do I manipulate people? Um, not to give the game away, but... see above. Does the fact that I know that as a species and as a culture we have a lot of maladaptive behaviors that lead to suffering, and that most people aren't aware enough of their motivations to react to other people with 100% conscious choice, have anything specific to say about my morality? No, I don't think so.
posted by restless_nomad at 1:12 PM on March 22, 2019 [12 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad at 1:12 PM on March 22, 2019 [12 favorites]
I have had way, way too much experience with other humans to have a default belief in the fundamental goodness of all humans. Well, I think most humans are born fundamentally good. If there was a way to whisk all babies off to be raised by kind, generous, good, well-meaning, accepting and decent people - I think the majority of those babies would grow up to be good people.
Somewhere along the line, though... we've accrued a lot of awful people who raise other people to be selfish, bigoted, racist, nationalist, greedy, etc. people. Maybe, deep down, they could be good again, if they could be reached. But I don't believe that by default people I meet are fundamentally good. Not anymore.
posted by jzb at 1:18 PM on March 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
Somewhere along the line, though... we've accrued a lot of awful people who raise other people to be selfish, bigoted, racist, nationalist, greedy, etc. people. Maybe, deep down, they could be good again, if they could be reached. But I don't believe that by default people I meet are fundamentally good. Not anymore.
posted by jzb at 1:18 PM on March 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
Well, I think most humans are born fundamentally good. If there was a way to whisk all babies off to be raised by kind, generous, good, well-meaning, accepting and decent people - I think the majority of those babies would grow up to be good people.
It's funny - and this goes to mattwan's point that the phrasing in this quiz is really unclear - but to me this is, like, the whole definition of faith in humanity.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:21 PM on March 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
It's funny - and this goes to mattwan's point that the phrasing in this quiz is really unclear - but to me this is, like, the whole definition of faith in humanity.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:21 PM on March 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
I mean, I have faith that people are fundamentally good. I just don't have faith that they'll be good to me.
posted by rue72 at 1:36 PM on March 22, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by rue72 at 1:36 PM on March 22, 2019 [8 favorites]
Also what about people who face systemic discrimination? How are they supposed to answer, "I expect to be treated fairly" when they have good reason to expect not to be treated fairly? Does it make you a worse person if, eg, you expect to face discrimination?
posted by Frowner at 1:52 PM on March 22, 2019 [22 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 1:52 PM on March 22, 2019 [22 favorites]
My immediate thought after taking it was, all this quiz measures is how privileged you are. If you aren't super high on the Maslow hierarchy, you're not going to score high. It says more about your circumstances than who you are as a person.
In this subtle way, the theory diminishes the lessons of Kant while performatively paying respect to philosophy.
posted by polymodus at 2:05 PM on March 22, 2019 [14 favorites]
In this subtle way, the theory diminishes the lessons of Kant while performatively paying respect to philosophy.
posted by polymodus at 2:05 PM on March 22, 2019 [14 favorites]
I feel like they could have done just as well asking Lord British to make their scale...
posted by biogeo at 2:17 PM on March 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by biogeo at 2:17 PM on March 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
Lord British has a rather more nuanced understanding of human impulses, I think.
posted by restless_nomad at 2:19 PM on March 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad at 2:19 PM on March 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
It doesn't feel particularly "dark" to me, though.
I think you could say that absence of light doesn’t imply darkness or vice versa.
In the article, they say
Light Triad Scale (LTS). The LTS is a first draft measure of a loving and beneficent orientation toward others
I haven’t read the article in full, but just from the initial set-up (and from the test, which I took!), I feel that the muddling-through middle is absent. They contrast ‘socially aversive traits’ vs ‘a loving and beneficent orientation toward others’, as if there are only these two camps. I DO understand that the model is more sophisticated than this, but the presentation is rather simplistic. It sort of pushes you to identify as one or the other, where I think that, for the vast majority of us, the truth is that we are pretty much at neutral the vast majority of the time, and it is only when issues are foregrounded that we go one way or another.
Like, I scored close to 90% on both Kantianism and Humanism (under 20% on Faith in Humanity, FWIW), and I think that illustrates my beliefs, opinion, worldview fairly well; but how well does it illustrate my day-to-day actions? I mean, I mostly do not think ‘am I now, in this moment, treating this person in front of me as someone who has dreams, desires, needs etc. of their own?’
No, in fact, I treat them as a means to an end very often – and that is actually to their benefit! If I stood there navel-gazing about everybody’s human worth and aspirations every time someone asks me a question, or whenever I go shopping, or I want something from someone, or someone wants something from me, etc. I would be making everybody's life significantly harder.
Plus, what about when you are actually brought face to face with hard choices? What about when someone is very clearly not my favourite person – either as an individual or as a group? Like, someone who I consider to be an arsehole – I’ve ruminated for decades on how I can ‘value their dignity etc’ without just ending up being a pushover (my solution: cut contact). Doesn’t mean I don’t blow up at them if they are somehow still around; in the moment, their dignity is the last thing on my mind, and that’s the truth.
And it’s even worse when it comes to groups, at least at the moment, and I change my mind 5 times a second when it comes to deciding whether I hate those people with the rage of a thousand suns, whether I think they need to never be given up on and brought into the light as it were, whether I think humanity were better off if they vanished, etc.
Having said that, I think the article is onto something and we live at a time when we need people who score highly as ‘everyday saints’ on all three facets, maybe the last one in particular. I think that this last facet presupposes the others (but not the other way round, as I and other people who took the test can attest) and it is absolutely necessary for the kind of gigantic feats of social imagination necessary to bring us out of the turbulent waters we are currently charting. Though I’d amend this last facet to include seanmpuckett’s last elixir: wisdom. We need people who have faith in humanity, tempered by wisdom.
In fact, here’s some figures straight out of my behind: people who are able to drag whole communities/ societies out of the storm and into new havens need scores as follows:
Kantianism: between 75-90% (not more – you need to be able to make use of people just enough to achieve the next step towards situations that are more equitable and harmonious; so that you don’t end up abusing this circumstance, you also need the below)
Humanism: between 75-90% (not more, or you risk ending up as a sucker)
Faith in humanity, tempered by wisdom: between 65-85% (not more, or you might end up becoming a monk, teacher, philosopher, dreamer)
Narcissism: between 25-35% (not less, or else you will be too self-effacing for initiative)
Callousness and cynicism: between 10-15% (needed so you can make hard decision & to recognize when someone tries to pull the wool over your eyes – not more though, because … well, it doesn’t need saying)
Machiavellianism: 25-35% (not less, because then you might be ineffective in what you are trying to achieve, which the beneficial triad ensures is desirable).
Oh, and contrary to other posters, in my (non-western) experience, you actually find more people who (seem) to be higher on the Faith of Humanity facet I poorer circles.
posted by doggod at 2:31 PM on March 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
I think you could say that absence of light doesn’t imply darkness or vice versa.
In the article, they say
Light Triad Scale (LTS). The LTS is a first draft measure of a loving and beneficent orientation toward others
I haven’t read the article in full, but just from the initial set-up (and from the test, which I took!), I feel that the muddling-through middle is absent. They contrast ‘socially aversive traits’ vs ‘a loving and beneficent orientation toward others’, as if there are only these two camps. I DO understand that the model is more sophisticated than this, but the presentation is rather simplistic. It sort of pushes you to identify as one or the other, where I think that, for the vast majority of us, the truth is that we are pretty much at neutral the vast majority of the time, and it is only when issues are foregrounded that we go one way or another.
Like, I scored close to 90% on both Kantianism and Humanism (under 20% on Faith in Humanity, FWIW), and I think that illustrates my beliefs, opinion, worldview fairly well; but how well does it illustrate my day-to-day actions? I mean, I mostly do not think ‘am I now, in this moment, treating this person in front of me as someone who has dreams, desires, needs etc. of their own?’
No, in fact, I treat them as a means to an end very often – and that is actually to their benefit! If I stood there navel-gazing about everybody’s human worth and aspirations every time someone asks me a question, or whenever I go shopping, or I want something from someone, or someone wants something from me, etc. I would be making everybody's life significantly harder.
Plus, what about when you are actually brought face to face with hard choices? What about when someone is very clearly not my favourite person – either as an individual or as a group? Like, someone who I consider to be an arsehole – I’ve ruminated for decades on how I can ‘value their dignity etc’ without just ending up being a pushover (my solution: cut contact). Doesn’t mean I don’t blow up at them if they are somehow still around; in the moment, their dignity is the last thing on my mind, and that’s the truth.
And it’s even worse when it comes to groups, at least at the moment, and I change my mind 5 times a second when it comes to deciding whether I hate those people with the rage of a thousand suns, whether I think they need to never be given up on and brought into the light as it were, whether I think humanity were better off if they vanished, etc.
Having said that, I think the article is onto something and we live at a time when we need people who score highly as ‘everyday saints’ on all three facets, maybe the last one in particular. I think that this last facet presupposes the others (but not the other way round, as I and other people who took the test can attest) and it is absolutely necessary for the kind of gigantic feats of social imagination necessary to bring us out of the turbulent waters we are currently charting. Though I’d amend this last facet to include seanmpuckett’s last elixir: wisdom. We need people who have faith in humanity, tempered by wisdom.
In fact, here’s some figures straight out of my behind: people who are able to drag whole communities/ societies out of the storm and into new havens need scores as follows:
Kantianism: between 75-90% (not more – you need to be able to make use of people just enough to achieve the next step towards situations that are more equitable and harmonious; so that you don’t end up abusing this circumstance, you also need the below)
Humanism: between 75-90% (not more, or you risk ending up as a sucker)
Faith in humanity, tempered by wisdom: between 65-85% (not more, or you might end up becoming a monk, teacher, philosopher, dreamer)
Narcissism: between 25-35% (not less, or else you will be too self-effacing for initiative)
Callousness and cynicism: between 10-15% (needed so you can make hard decision & to recognize when someone tries to pull the wool over your eyes – not more though, because … well, it doesn’t need saying)
Machiavellianism: 25-35% (not less, because then you might be ineffective in what you are trying to achieve, which the beneficial triad ensures is desirable).
Oh, and contrary to other posters, in my (non-western) experience, you actually find more people who (seem) to be higher on the Faith of Humanity facet I poorer circles.
posted by doggod at 2:31 PM on March 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
I got high Faith in Humanity and Humanism, but a totally even split between Kantianism/Machiavellianism.
showbiz_liz, according to my reliable and trust-worthy theory of leadership, you are on the right track. You need to work a bit on your Kantianism and dampen your Machiavellianism, and then you’re golden. Or we could just change the theory, no skin of my nose.
BTW, I really enjoy this post, though I think it would be twice as enjoyable if we were all in a pub somewhere sharing a bottle of wine or several.
posted by doggod at 2:46 PM on March 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
showbiz_liz, according to my reliable and trust-worthy theory of leadership, you are on the right track. You need to work a bit on your Kantianism and dampen your Machiavellianism, and then you’re golden. Or we could just change the theory, no skin of my nose.
BTW, I really enjoy this post, though I think it would be twice as enjoyable if we were all in a pub somewhere sharing a bottle of wine or several.
posted by doggod at 2:46 PM on March 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
would we say that light-triad people are really froody dudes who know where their towels are?
posted by BungaDunga at 3:56 PM on March 22, 2019
posted by BungaDunga at 3:56 PM on March 22, 2019
My immediate thought after taking it was, all this quiz measures is how privileged you are. If you aren't super high on the Maslow hierarchy, you're not going to score high. It says more about your circumstances than who you are as a person.
In this subtle way, the theory diminishes the lessons of Kant while performatively paying respect to philosophy.
I think that's another way of saying that this quiz (unknowingly) explains the history of philosophy from Kant to Marx.
If this quiz had measured faith in personality quizzes, my result would be quite low.
posted by a certain Sysoi Pafnut'evich at 4:17 PM on March 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
In this subtle way, the theory diminishes the lessons of Kant while performatively paying respect to philosophy.
I think that's another way of saying that this quiz (unknowingly) explains the history of philosophy from Kant to Marx.
If this quiz had measured faith in personality quizzes, my result would be quite low.
posted by a certain Sysoi Pafnut'evich at 4:17 PM on March 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
I think it would be better to operationalize Faith in Humanity (which I take it is meant to be the opposite of Cynicism) as belief in the possibility of humans to work together to make society better for everyone. You don't have to believe people are fundamentally good but you have to believe it's possible to create institutions to magnify the good and deal with the bad.
Maybe Faith in Civilization?
posted by straight at 5:53 PM on March 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
Maybe Faith in Civilization?
posted by straight at 5:53 PM on March 22, 2019 [3 favorites]
I wonder how I might have scored on this test prior to 2016.
As it is, I got 50% light triad. 50% faith in humanity, 75% humanism, 90% Kantianism. 20% narcissism, 20% psychopathy, 25% Machiavellianism. Nice to know I’m not a narcissist a-hole, considering I was raised by one.
posted by Autumnheart at 5:55 PM on March 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
As it is, I got 50% light triad. 50% faith in humanity, 75% humanism, 90% Kantianism. 20% narcissism, 20% psychopathy, 25% Machiavellianism. Nice to know I’m not a narcissist a-hole, considering I was raised by one.
posted by Autumnheart at 5:55 PM on March 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
The second time I took the test I got 100% light triad and 0% dark triad; kan't wait to bring that up on my next blind date so she'll know what a great guy I am!
posted by TedW at 6:31 PM on March 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by TedW at 6:31 PM on March 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
The test questions were overly simplistic, extremely easy to game, and super focused on individuality and kind of a western cultural mindset.
A better test would have like 20 hypothetical situations and 3-5 possible responses, each response with its own set of weights on the tripod (because it's just a tripod).
While in town the baker gives you a sweetroll. Delighted, you take it into an alley to enjoy, only to be intercepted by a gang of three kids your age. The leader demands the sweetroll, or else he and his friends will beat you and take it. Do you:
Act like you're going to give him the sweetroll, but at the last minute throw it in the air, hoping that they'll pay attention to it long enough for you to get a shot in on the leader?
Give him the sweetroll now without argument, knowing that later this afternoon you will have all your friends with you and can come and take whatever he owes you?
Drop the sweetroll and step on it, then get ready for the fight?
posted by Merus at 6:47 PM on March 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
A better test would have like 20 hypothetical situations and 3-5 possible responses, each response with its own set of weights on the tripod (because it's just a tripod).
While in town the baker gives you a sweetroll. Delighted, you take it into an alley to enjoy, only to be intercepted by a gang of three kids your age. The leader demands the sweetroll, or else he and his friends will beat you and take it. Do you:
Act like you're going to give him the sweetroll, but at the last minute throw it in the air, hoping that they'll pay attention to it long enough for you to get a shot in on the leader?
Give him the sweetroll now without argument, knowing that later this afternoon you will have all your friends with you and can come and take whatever he owes you?
Drop the sweetroll and step on it, then get ready for the fight?
posted by Merus at 6:47 PM on March 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
Basically they just decide what traits are "saintly" or "light side" and the science-y part is around making sure that they vary among the population by a reasonable amount, they are reasonably consistent for an individual, and the three traits are at least semi-independent, right? They are proposing a measurement system for traits that sound nice, basically.
It's not like they've looked at objectively good people and isolated these traits, nor have they validated these traits by finding saints over-represented in this population. If someone here wanted to declare that "faith in humanity" should be replaced by "fiery discontent with injustice" that would be just as valid (assuming you could come up with questions that measure this just as well.)
I would love to be corrected if I am wrong.
posted by mark k at 9:54 PM on March 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
It's not like they've looked at objectively good people and isolated these traits, nor have they validated these traits by finding saints over-represented in this population. If someone here wanted to declare that "faith in humanity" should be replaced by "fiery discontent with injustice" that would be just as valid (assuming you could come up with questions that measure this just as well.)
I would love to be corrected if I am wrong.
posted by mark k at 9:54 PM on March 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
If you have enough power you don't have to manipulate, charm, or flatter. You just ask, tell, or buy. This is part of the origin of sexist and/or racist stereotypes that paint the members of subaltern classes as wheedling, manipulative, lying, scheming, indirect, meek, etc.
This really perfectly encapsulates my anger at this “research”.
posted by corb at 10:36 PM on March 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
This really perfectly encapsulates my anger at this “research”.
posted by corb at 10:36 PM on March 22, 2019 [7 favorites]
I'm not looking forward to the shitty clickbait that article mills will milk from this for the next two years. Took the quiz and scored at 47%, which is "interesting" to see since I have some healthy skepticism and have been recovering from trauma from having overly intense rose-colored glasses, but also currently live in the least toxic environment I've ever been in. I'm really not a fan of this research or this quiz or it at all - they're all not measuring the right stuff and not asking the right questions, which is "in what part of our society do we need to use certain traits and how can we actually understand how it impacts different socioeconomic and ethnic groups differently in trying to survive?" Blah.
posted by yueliang at 2:52 PM on March 23, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by yueliang at 2:52 PM on March 23, 2019 [1 favorite]
As far as "faith in humanity" is concerned: I think that "faith in humanity" is important as far as believing the good intentions and good nature of one's nearest and dearest. Not having much faith in Trump supporters is one thing, but being defensive and suspicious of one's spouse - or, worse, one's children - is going to lead to divorce and estrangement. There are people who believe in corporal punishment for actual babies (child abuse content warning) because of their belief in the bad nature of their kids.
And there are people who don’t do anything about it because they have faith that the abusive monsters are doing good. That’s what “faith in humanity” gets you.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:41 AM on March 24, 2019
And there are people who don’t do anything about it because they have faith that the abusive monsters are doing good. That’s what “faith in humanity” gets you.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:41 AM on March 24, 2019
"Aha, I've got Faith in Humanity, Kantianism and Humanism! Read 'em and weep! Har! So tell me what have *you* got?"
"I got nothing"
"I win!"
"All I have is Sense of Humor."
"Rats."
posted by storybored at 2:20 PM on March 25, 2019
"I got nothing"
"I win!"
"All I have is Sense of Humor."
"Rats."
posted by storybored at 2:20 PM on March 25, 2019
« Older Rick Steves Wants to Set You Free | to close the complex of eight jails on Rikers... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by escape from the potato planet at 8:38 AM on March 22, 2019 [5 favorites]