Psychology: Virtue-signalling

[Jonn]

Sometimes I write about the things I do for my community. I hope that is not virtue signaling, but rather an exhortation to become involved.

"The litmus test" is determining the attitude involved.
Self-honesty is critical here, of course.

What is the motivation?
Is it to engage in an altruistic deed, or is the priority to curry favourable responses from the community with the intention of developing a celebrity status?

 

[Au Naturel]

It was an interesting start to an investigation.


Emotionalism is a red flag when it happens, yes.
"Objectivity" is the path to enlightenment rather than it being self-serving...
Unless you are studying the use of emotive terminology.

Please keep in mind, having a skeptical mindset is always advisable.
Ppl who blindly believe things they see/hear are uncomfortably naive and are perfect targets for manipulation.
Maintaining a critical thinking mindset, rather than a personal narrative, pays dividends.


Agreed, but that doesn't mean the term can't convey meaning.

For example:
A psychopath can be the representation of a person with antisocial personality disorder who abuses others purposely.
That is how I use it.

Someone with ASPD is not necessarily toxic to other ppl.
But without a functioning conscience, reason would suggest transgression would be easier.

Other research I have engaged in has uncovered that the environment is very important in the metamorphosis from being someone with ASPD to the colloquial "psychopath".


That is your opinion, yes.

Research suggests that most ppl have elements of narcissism from time to time.
"Nature of the beast."

It is extremely rare for a trait to be all or nothing. Everything comes in degrees. Whether it is your height, skin color, or a psychological trait. Most traits are controlled by multiple genes. Even a trait controlled by a single gene with only an on or off switch will show variety in expression depending on homozygous for on, homozygous for off, and heterozygous. Expression will further be modified by the environment.

Personality disorders are normal human character traits carried to damaging levels. The DSM-5 describes a disorder as "causing significant clinical distress and impairs social, occupational, and/or other normal life functions." That is to differentiate it from the "normal" levels of these traits found in most people. If you see personality traits in Bell curve distributions, people on the extreme ends of the curve are usually considered to have a disorder if they lead to distress for the person or the people around them.

Healthy narcissism is your sense of self-worth. If you don't have it - or it gets beaten out of you - that's a problem. If it monopolizes your behavior to the detriment of those around you, that's a problem too.

 

[Au Naturel]

Sometimes I write about the things I do for my community. I hope that is not virtue signaling, but rather an exhortation to become involved. I get great enjoyment over things like running kayak safety for swimmers in a race and think that helping in the community and participating provides a better quality of life for us all. Some things are quite hard for me, like being a Big Brother to an autistic boy and I dearly hope I am making a difference.

I wouldn't worry about why one is doing good deeds or why one might want to talk about them. Everything we do is selfish at one level or another, even following lessons we learned as children or following an instinct.

Did you write about it because you felt good about it, or did you do it so you could write about it? That's a matter of introspection.

Virtue signaling always has a negative aspect to it. People compete to see who is more virtuous. Not having the virtue that is being proclaimed makes you a bad person. As in, "I am holier than thou." It divides the word into us and them and proclaims "US" to be superior and I am one of the more superior. It is rooted in insecurity. A secure person doesn't need to proclaim their virtue.

If our deeds are kind to others, it doesn't matter why we did them. The good was still done. If the deeds are hurtful, we are dangerous, and I don't care what the intention is. That's how we pave the road to Hell.

 

[Jonn]

I wouldn't worry about why one is doing good deeds or why one might want to talk about them. Everything we do is selfish at one level or another, even following lessons we learned as children or following an instinct.

Agreed.
Even altruists are "simply" motivated by their inherent emotional needs.

Virtue signaling always has a negative aspect to it. People compete to see who is more virtuous.

Well, that is the case using the modern definition of "virtue-signalling", yes.
It has strong negative connotations these days.
It is "social preening/grooming" to establish social dominance.

It is rooted in insecurity. A secure person doesn't need to proclaim their virtue.

Absolutely.
Ppl with high self-esteem have no need for virtue-signalling.
On the contrary, they would be embarrassed if ppl saw them behaving that way.
"Virtue-signalling" and "personal dignity" are at the opposite ends of the "Bell Curve", IMO.

Glad we are on the same page.

 

[Hypnalis]

What is the motivation?
Is it to engage in an altruistic deed, or is the priority to curry favourable responses from the community with the intention of developing a celebrity status?

FWIW I think this is a misjudgment akin to setting the threshold for narcissism so low it removes the requirement for "ruthless exploitation"

You can make a good case for altruism being an evolved behavior which improves synergy in small groups of humans (and homnins). Naturally, like everything that's not a short-term zero-sum game, it's highjacked by parasites who provide the appearance without the value.

But both of those are natural, and IMO it's not reasonable to criticize either side based on motivation. It's fair to resent the exploiters on practical terms, but if you apply the "cast the first stone" principle, you finish up needing group/community standards to manage them.

Of course the electronic version is degenerate, but so are a lot of other things in the "hyper-connected world".
Today's challenge is to find any remnant community standards at all /sigh.

 

[MNAus]

But both of those are natural, and IMO it's not reasonable to criticize either side based on motivation.

Perhaps it's a natural requirement necessary to maintain a degree of altruism within society that we must criticise the 'parasites'. Perhaps moving to the balcony to watch the dancefloor breaks important dynamics that keep different personality types in check.

Prisoner dilemmas are always tricky in society, but the idea of group disapproval, or worse, has a powerful effect on preventing everyone from taking the "defect" action. I don't think disapproving of people who DO take the "defect" action is an inherently bad thing, and might have enabled us to be successful as a cooperative species.

 

[Jonn]

Perhaps it's a natural requirement necessary to maintain a degree of altruism within society that we must criticise the 'parasites'.

I think you are missing the point of this thread.
It is about ppl who want to embrace celebrity status through virtue-signalling.

Virtue signallers will often concoct/misrepresent situations to garner social credit.
In THIS context, the virtue-signallers ARE the parasites.

 

[MNAus]

I think you are missing the point of this thread.
It is about ppl who want to embrace celebrity status through virtue-signalling.

Virtue signallers will often concoct/misrepresent situations to garner social credit.
In THIS context, the virtue-signallers ARE the parasites.

Not missing the point, just side-tracked

 

[All-Rounder]

There is also this manipulative humbleness, I think it is very common in social groups but can also have end means of gain for a specific individual.

 

[All-Rounder]

FWIW I think this is a misjudgment akin to setting the threshold for narcissism so low it removes the requirement for "ruthless exploitation"

You can make a good case for altruism being an evolved behavior which improves synergy in small groups of humans (and homnins). Naturally, like everything that's not a short-term zero-sum game, it's highjacked by parasites who provide the appearance without the value.

But both of those are natural, and IMO it's not reasonable to criticize either side based on motivation. It's fair to resent the exploiters on practical terms, but if you apply the "cast the first stone" principle, you finish up needing group/community standards to manage them.

Of course the electronic version is degenerate, but so are a lot of other things in the "hyper-connected world".
Today's challenge is to find any remnant community standards at all /sigh.

That is where rules come into action, and through judgement which we all can make, unless we have mental disease but the prisons are full and still not full enough, but some make mistakes and others do it deliberately for whatever positive outcome it offers them, momentarily or not, and some have reasons to repeat the deeds.

Is it reasonable to blame the parasites for enjoying harm and "cheating" the games of life to extreme levels when they can choose not to do it? An act has an owner, and we are all responsible for our actions.

It's expected we would separate these parasites from the assumed "normal" functioning of society, apply consequences they would care about e.g. take their power and influence and connections away temporarily and try to reintegrate them (some prison things such as being in handcuffs is actually a psychological state which is determined to help these individuals but it is not enough, so they have made programs and groups for people who have done their time to prevent reinprisonment which is quite common) as well as document their details for future breaking of the law which is expected.

Anyhow, I have major issues with the effectiveness of law as there are many able to cheat the system undetected and detected and lots of flaws in the system.

 

[Neri]

Interesting thread. One thought that often comes to mind when I witness this type of thing, the "virtue-signalling" that appears on our radar quite a lot these days is "What is it that you are wanting people NOT to see?".

It seems to me (in my experience, at least) that virtue signalling is often a ploy used to distract from some other aspects of that person's personality that they are wanting to distract from.

Virtue signalling can be quite "flashy" ~ "Oh wow, what a thoughtful, caring person you are!"is certainly a response craved for by people with narcissistic traits that border or tip into pathological levels. Admiration is the most delicious emotional food of the so-called "grandiose" narcissistic personality; and is what is known as "narcissistic suppy".

While pity and support and attention and energy is what those who fall on the "covert", or "vulnerable", narcissistic spectrum, crave the most.

Of course many people suffering from these disorderings, (and they are indeed suffering, most abominably and extremely) do exhibit traits of both, and often alternate between promoting a sense of victimhood and promoting their inherent virtue, altruism and heroism with some I-am-so-much-more-aware- and-more-caring-than-you smugness thrown in.

This is done, primarily to make themselves look "better" while making other's look "worse".

Even victimhood can connotate a sense of innocence and purity, while demonizing other's (as well as being financially lucrative some of the time).

Underlying narcissism is an excruciating sense of inadequacy and shame, way too painful to acknowledge and expose IMO.

It is an investment in a false sense of self and is a lonely frightened place.

Psychopathy, "dark triad" and antisocial personality disorder is another thing altogether.

"Cluster B" personality disorders are most often the result of childhood trauma and emotional neglect, coupled with a sense of entitlement, much like a 3-4 year old's emotional development.

Of course, there are overlaps. Many serial relationally abusive people fall into a mixture, hence the "cluster B" that can be hard to fathom or separate. Cluster B is the cluster term for narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder.

This is all just my own hypothesis, though, despite my authoritative delivery; (I am a backyard psychologist, NOT formally trained) as I've been through quite of few years (decades) of some treatment that falls within the bounds of "narcissistic abuse" and then quite a few more trying to get my head around it.

i continue to deal with it, albeit indirectly, for the most part, and have proven to be quite the "soft target" and scapegoat for a great deal of my life.

Compassion and sadness mixed with some hurt anger and resignation, while knowing no-contact or "grey rocking" are imperative, are my most often now-responses.

 

[Misty Avich]

I used to know this woman who virtue-signaled. She said she hoped her children die before her, and claimed it was a good thing because then her children won't be left alone in the world without her. But I don't know, I think it's natural for the parents do die before the children. I've lost my mum, and while she felt sad and worried about leaving me behind and wondering how I'll fair later on in life, I think the worst thing she would have experienced is having one of her children die before her. Usually when your children die it's an untimely death, unless you live to be over 100 and your children are in their 80s. Most parents are traumatized when their children die and never get over it.

Sometimes people think they're being all nice and impossibly empathetic, but any normal human has a little bit of selfishness. I've learnt to let my hair down sometimes, because I've also learnt that being too empathetic all the time freaks people out. It does me.

 

[Au Naturel]

I used to know this woman who virtue-signaled. She said she hoped her children die before her, and claimed it was a good thing because then her children won't be left alone

That's not a virtue signal. Maybe it is attention-seeking by saying outrageous things. Maybe psychopathy. Maybe the most extreme case of narcissism. Maybe the children have severe developmental problems, and she can't bring herself to make plans for them in the event of her demise. (Like some people cannot bear the thought of writing a will.) Nobody playing with a full deck of cards wants to be so indispensable as to wish their children an early death.

 

[Neri]

Psychopathy is a neural phenotype inherently deficient in empathy and the subsequent patterns of abusive, exploitative behaviour, and /or predatory behaviour.
Sociopathy is developed as a learned lack of empathy and subsequent behaviour devoid of empathy and exploitative and abusive and/or predatory in nature
Anti social personality disorder is the latest term for those who persistently lack empathy and enjoy a sense of power over other's and treat them accordingly.
They can share a trait or a tendency with narcissistic people and/or cluster b people called "duper's delight", which is taking pleasure and satisfaction in misleading, lying and manipulating other's.
I've heard it said, from the mouth of a diagnosed anti social personalty, self identified psychopath that
"All psychopaths are narcissistic but not all narcissists are psychopathic."

 

[Misty Avich]

That's not a virtue signal. Maybe it is attention-seeking by saying outrageous things. Maybe psychopathy. Maybe the most extreme case of narcissism. Maybe the children have severe developmental problems, and she can't bring herself to make plans for them in the event of her demise. (Like some people cannot bear the thought of writing a will.) Nobody playing with a full deck of cards wants to be so indispensable as to wish their children an early death.

She did virtue-signal other times though.
But she was saying that as a way of saying "I am so empathetic that I can even go outside the box, oh what I lovely person I am".

She also lied, said she had alexithemia so couldn't think empathetically, but then always claimed how empathetic she thought. I don't think she was empathetic at all. She was a manipulative bully who was pretending to be nice all the time.

 

[Au Naturel]

Not all people who have virtue are signalling.

Some are sincere.

Virtue Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Maybe they are just trying to be a good example and hope others will follow.

 

[Au Naturel]

The problem is that it's usually hard to tell if a person is virtue signaling. Maybe they are just expressing an opinion or personal conviction and don't particularly care about the feedback they receive from others. People are so often eager to label others as narcissistic when that may not be the case at all. Just because someone does not agree with you or just because someone expresses a strong conviction about something does not mean they are virtue signaling.

Narcissism is not by itself unhealthy unless it is taken to an extreme. It is, after all, the belief that you are a good person and that people will like you. (Narcissus wasn't a bad guy, he was just a gorgeous young boy who was cursed by a god and had a strange upbringing.) But if you let it dominate your life, if you continue to believe that even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, or if you lack empathy, then you have a problem.

The assertion may be true - or it may just be the first epithet that came to mind when someone wanted to dis you. Just like gaslighting or a host of other popular labels people use who don't know their meaning.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

It's very easy to be called names like "narcissist" these days when one clearly isn't, and it can make us paranoid. If it wasn't for the sort of things you do then there wouldn't be any internet (the good/useful side) lol. What you're doing is selfless but also just something normal. Not virtue signaling at all.

I think it's when people take things to the extreme and just being a nuisance more than a help, or even hurting people or animals. Like where people torture an animal then video themselves "saving" the animal to make themselves look like heroes when really they're evil. But if someone is genuinely saving an animal but gets their phone out and film themselves doing it, I don't think that is bad. Sometimes good people do that to bring a smile to people's faces when seeing their video online and to restore our faith in humanity. So they're saving an animal and making people smile. Also, as humans, sharing publicly that they've done a good deed can be natural and make us feel good about ourselves. But that's OK too, because it's better to be kind to others to make you feel good about yourself than to bully others to make you feel good about yourself.

Then there is the guy who got ambushed in the cutest way possible. I believe he found homes for them all.