There's a Catch 22 created when people can be called out for being self-serving OR for having clearly defined ethics. The people who want to label others as manipulative will be satisfied either way.
Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
My fear is that this will make people doubt the verity of victims' stories. I typically believe people unless I am given a very good reason not to. When inappropriate behavior happens on social media, there's often evidence which proves it.“Our conclusion is simply that victim signals are effective tools of social influence and maximally effective when deployed with signals of virtue. We also provide evidence supporting our proposition that for some people these signals can be deployed as a duplicitous tactic to acquire personal benefits they would otherwise not receive. Given the ubiquity of victimhood claims circulating through public discourse by word-of-mouth, news reports, social media, legal cases, and the like, an explanation for the multiple motives that drive people to claim this status has both theoretical and practical relevance.”
Quite often the person who perceives virtue signalling does so because they lack their own virtue, or they find it hard to believe virtue exists without being contrived.
Often people recognize virtue signaling as a way for the signaler to appear better than or superior to others. Common areas of signaling include comments by people who constantly stress and promote their food choices, transportation choices, education choices, medical choices, clothing choices, etc. as superior to others. They use virtue signaling to criticize others and to elevate their own sense of self-esteem.
I remember once this narcissistic bus driver I used to know often pretended to care about people when really she didn't. The more she acted like she cared, the more she'd slag them off behind their backs. I've seen her do it many times, and she also had a habit of lying.
Anyway, one day a lady, possibly in her 70s but wasn't frail or anything, got on the bus and said she had fallen over on her way to the bus stop. She had nothing more than a bruise on her knee and didn't want any fuss, but the driver fussed way too much, pulled into a bay, and phoned for an ambulance. But, being so I had sussed her out by then, I knew this was an act to tell everyone "hey, look how wonderful I am, I'm phoning an ambulance for this elderly lady". The lady looked embarrassed, but obviously was grateful, but she didn't even need an ambulance, despite her age. It wasn't like she was laying on the sidewalk unable to stand or was hemorrhaging or had any fractures or was frightened or anything. I think the bus driver was just wasting everyone's time by pretending to be "really, really nice".
I've helped people in the street before, but only because I care and I try to treat others how I like to be treated. But constantly trying to be too overcaring can be annoying and freaky. Some people don't want fuss, especially if they seem OK.
Well, once again, we need to be more specific in terms of context.IMO the lower limit for "narcissistic behavior" is still well above virtue signaling, which is a very common human behavior, and has probably being going on "forever".
It's a moving target though. There's been a huge increase in the "demand for offense" of late, so thresholds for offensive behaviors are falling fast.
And the former here is the "look at me, look at me" mindset.It depends on the context.
These days, the term "virtue-signalling" has been corrupted into meaning the former.
It is the former that I have a problem with.
If I understand you correctly, yes, there is an unfortunate culture of looking for reasons to complain about ppl.It's a moving target though. There's been a huge increase in the "demand for offense" of late, so thresholds for offensive behaviors are falling fast.
Not really. Most virtue signaling shows subordination to a group mindset. I am virtuous, just like everyone else here. The dominant member signals the "virtue," and then the subordinates follow in a kind of ditto-head competition.But doesn't being a "virtue-signaller" inherently mean a person with a rather narcissistic mindset?
Commonly, "virtue-signalling" is renowned to be a "look at me, look at me" attitude.
I understand that.As I've mentioned before, I'm not equipped to deal well with people who are socially razor sharp, including people who are powerful victim/virtue signallers.
I understand what you are saying.It's a difficult form of argument for the most capable debater to tackle - because any questioning of the signalled virtue is portrayed as an attack on the victimhood or at least ignorance.
What I find "interesting" is how some autistics ignore the limitations of other autistic ppl.Emotional DARVO strikes the fear of god into me, especially when the accusation is a weak spot in an autist's capabilities, e.g. when they insinuate you've committed a massive faux pas that is scandalously offensive and triggering.
Most ppl on the spectrum would have experienced this, surely.That's just an absolute cluster bomb for someone who struggles to understand social interaction, it rips away any sort of scaffolding, spins you like a top and leaves you staggering in the dark.
There are ways and there are ways...That said I think that there are many people who actually have disadvantage and are actually trying to do good things who get waved away with the "virtue signaller" label.
It was an interesting start to an investigation.Offhand, I'd say the "science" in the article quoted in the OP isn't science. It is an op-ed that has lots of citations. (Pretty typical of most sociology.)
Emotionalism is a red flag when it happens, yes.The whole concept of a "Dark Triad" of personality traits reeks of subjectivity and "pop" psychology. A scientist ought not to use such an emotionally loaded term.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean the term can't convey meaning.Psychopathy isn't recognized as a specific disorder in the DSM-V and has no objective definition.
That is your opinion, yes.At least narcissism can be carried to the point of being narcissistic personality disorder. However, some narcissism is good for you. A complete lack of it is itself a personality problem.
This "template" of behaviour is common in some sections of society.There is a large category of vegan and vegetarian recipes in the NYT but one almost never sees meat-eaters attacking the vegan and vegetarians in the comments section for eschewing meat.