You will need to go full screen on a desktop or zoom into the video to see some of the images properly… probably.
Enjoy the editing.
Also wanted to add, I agree with Peterson about Hitler and Disgust sensitivity entirely - just wanted to say I think, in my evaluation of Self, there is more to it.
Additions to the psych tests:
Studies showing Dark Triad traits linked to Activism (protecting the environment, anti-capitalism towards socialism for “fairness”, etc).
https://elicit.com/notebook/8fe3d345-d659-4352-9763-c137b39509a2
Psychopathy related to Altriusm
https://elicit.com/notebook/54070145-80c9-41ec-b0f0-d286f54dcd8a
HEXACO ‘Fairness’ vs YourMorals Sacredness ‘Fairness’
This is a different “kind” of fairness to HEXACO which is relevant in the YourMorals test.
What HEXACO is looking at:
Fairness – this subscale measures (un)willingness to cheat or steal in order to get ahead, as well as people's tendency to use fraud, be corrupt, or take advantage of others. High scorers have integrity and behave in a manner that treats all parties fairly and equitably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honesty-humility_factor_of_the_HEXACO_model_of_personality
I have done tax evasion (often but minor, very very common in Australia because of negative gearing and what have you. At speed dating I listened to a guy discuss his with me for 15 minutes which I found interesting, but yes even normies do it I think as it’s baked into the system moreso than other countries because its legalised evasion… people from the UK and USA find it interesting when they come here I think but I don’t really know much about it, mine is really minor but I have done it). For fraud, I used to fake my mums signature to get out of religion class and etc. I have discussed before how I like “dirty” to “clean” in terms of corruption, I like the dual criminal (thrill) /detective (sexy) tandem. I find both ends endlessly entertaining as I see the disagreeable / openness, “separating” and “creativity” value in each side.…. etc …… etc …… etc …... (validates Self being bad).
The Sacredness Survey from https://yourmorals.org/ is looking at:
The idea behind the scale is that different moral foundations may be sacred for some people and not for others. By "sacred" we mean that you would not for any amount of money violate the principles of that foundation. For instance, if ingroup loyalty were a sacred value to you then you would not betray (or perhaps even criticize publicly) your family, social groups, or nation, even for a million dollars. In this scale we included a range of minor to severe violations, so it is likely that you did not choose the "never for any amount of money" option all that often. Odds are you have already taken the "Moral Foundations Questionnaire." Your answers on this survey -- about sacredness -- will let us see whether the same general patterns hold across different ways of measuring moral values. In particular, we want to test our prediction that issues related to harm and fairness are more sacred to liberals, whereas issues related to ingroup, authority, and purity are more sacred to conservatives.
To learn more about Moral Foundations Theory, you can read this paper, the first one written on the topic: Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive Ethics: How Innately Prepared Intuitions Generate Culturally Variable Virtues. Daedalus, pp. 55-66.
To learn more about sacredness and how psychologists have studied it by asking people to make "taboo trade-offs," you can read this paper: Tetlock, P.E. (2003). Thinking about the unthinkable: Coping with secular encroachments on sacred values. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 320-324.
In this, I would imagine, Fairness is inclusive of Proportionality and Equality.
Fairness in this for me is, “don’t tread on me,” leaving the other alone. Though remember I do have average compassion in the big 10, not in the big 30, or HEXACO but yes, depends entirely on how much of it is related to ‘if it benefits you’ verses a general would you ‘harm for no reason,’ or is there an individually valuable ‘reason.’ Is someone going to shit on my beauty, intelligence or my financial worth - different people retaliate differently based on ‘reason’. I flat line care if someone calls me ugly or poor but I get fired up about being called dumb.
Again remember I am a female psychopath, it is more likely for me to have developed harmonisation strategies as they were societally reiterated to me for 35 years as to their importance in being a mateable ‘woman’.
I am very low in Equality but I am high in Proportionality - meaning, what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours because I care about how me affecting you affects my Status. If you aren’t affecting me, I will ignore you and let you prosper, its only when its a me vs you argument that changes it. I want to see my community prosper because that helps me prosper, obviously. If you are into comradery, you want to help your tribe as much as the Self because it elates your own Status both in the group (acquisition of higher quality mates, more responsibility granted, people buy you drinks, whatever) and people then see you as more altruistic (your tribe vs other tribe - if you destroy the other tribe, then your status fails to elate within your own tribe - an enemy image is required but very hard to control within yourself, the instinct to destroy the outgroup but its integral to maintain the ingroup - because they are like a tandem in terms of their stability and therefore you can have no loyalty to either at the end of the day because you could technically be in either, you can see psychopaths in the other group too whom you may see as more your people than the general population). There is nothing wrong with society prospering around you, as long as proportionally you get what you have worked for too. Activism begins when activists feel they are not getting proportionally what they think they should - a teacher getting paid less than a doctor, but both valuable to society - because they don’t intellectually understand skilled labour value. I once argued all these points, pro-teachers, pro-communism, pro balancing out finances. But I was <25 when I did this. Grew out of it with age.
So, under Fairness, if I take whats yours and you witch hunt and burn me - that kind of defies the purpose of my Machiavellian correct? There is millions of years of people “stealing” and being murdered by their tribe in consequence, it would be ridiculous to assume some Psychopaths hadn’t evolved with a high IQ to be adverse to ostracisation.
This is all correlated for me to Disagreeableness and Assertiveness.
What it means is, I don’t “even notice others” to think to take from them. I am so Narcissistically focused on the Self that I don’t think to take, until its in front of me. I just dont focus on equality.
I think its cute if my neighbour gets a dog, I don’t think of stealing that dog and making her hate me ‘for a million dollars’.
That seems useless because I am focused on thing x, I don’t want to have to argue with the neighbour (waste energy), not have them be able to take out my bins when I am on holiday and give me cool belgium biscuits at christmas time (useful for me and providing indulgence), etc.
A high IQ psychopath won’t bother with removing someone else’s sacredness if there is NO self gain.
If I steal your dog, I will have a dog. I gain.
But I also lose the other person, which is necessary for my environmental status.
If I ever sell the house, a good pip in from the nice neighbour to a seller is valuable for them paying the asking price, etc - cause nice happy neighbour is an extremely valuable asset to a home.
It’s complicated.
Done typing… got shit to do fam /tips-fedora.
Share this post