Talk:Dark triad

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelMalek (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Adam firlotte. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ngln92 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Samantha R Taylor, CourtneyLynn33.

Another source

Daniel Goleman's book Social Intelligence has a good chapter on this. FreplySpang 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deficiency

How does psychology determine what a "deficiency" is? Is there a set of criteria of behaviors? I looked around a little and couldn't find any cases of the of the word being used in a way that I was sure it was here. Would like more information please. 71.166.6.10 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

See Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -- I'ḏ♥One 00:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Editorializing?

Not making any edit because I'm not confident enough in my point, but the last section really reads like a very biased US-centric political point. Does it really convey any new, useful information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.68.15 (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the content on evolution need citations? For example, "most researchers" and "some argue" are vague. In addition, I'm not sure if the discussion of group selection and selfish gene theory are accurate or even relevant. Group selection is defined incorrectly and is not "antiquated and generally rejected". "Modern evolutionary biology" does not unilaterally take the selfish gene approach. The entire paragraph on the selfish gene approach sounds like an original analysis as opposed to a synthesis of existing work, and it does not indicate whether any scholars have actually applied this analysis to the topic of the Dark Triad. I'm going to start by removing these four sentences. If someone can rewrite these to show relevance, and to include citations, they could be added back to the article. Otherwise, the rest of the "In general" paragraph should be removed. Please correct me if I'm out of line--thanks. dz7 (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dark triad and agreeableness

In regards to the statement that "agreeableness had nothing to do with the core of the dark triad", I was wondering if this might be toned down a bit as it might be misleading to readers not familiar with statistical concepts. I've been unable to access the paper this is cited from as it is still in press, so I'm not completely sure I understand it. But what it sounds like is that callous manipulative traits are the common core of the dark triad and when this is statistically controlled for, the broader agreeableness trait becomes non-significant as a predictor. What I think might be misleading to some is that as it is currently written, it might give some people the impression that the dark triad is not really related to (dis)agreeableness at all. Previous research has found substantial negative correlations between callous manipulative traits and agreeableness, so there is an important overlap between the narrower traits of the dark triad and the broader agreeableness factor. Perhaps it might be more enlightening to readers to say something to the effect that the overlap between the various dark triad traits is due to a shared core of callousness and manipulation and that this is a more specific predictor than (dis)agreeableness broadly. It might also be clearer to state something like the three members of the dark triad are distinct and separate traits when callousness and manipulation are accounted for, rather than that they are "unrelated" as this might be confusing to lay readers.--Smcg8374 (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Dark triad and chinese zodiac - is this for real?

A new section was recently added about a supposed dark triad in the Chinese zodiac. No reference was provided and a quick google search turned up no mention of this. Therefore, I have deleted this addition as no evidence has been provided to verify that this is a real thing. If it turns out I am wrong, I will apologise, but I can't help but suspect that this may be a hoax.--Smcg8374 (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The dark triad represented in video games

Y'all remember Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, right? I played through that game twice, once making decisions how I personally would make them...morally upright, always generous (i.e. sparing people and giving away money and helping them with their problems). Then I played through it again, aiming to be the darkest Sith lord that had ever walked the galaxy. I killed, stole, spat on people when they asked for help. In the end, my light side character had more money and items than I knew what to do with, and my dark side character was always needing to stretch those last few credits just to survive from mission to mission, illustrating the point about these dark triad-heavy folks who don't plan for the future, want their money now, end up with less in the long run.

Same thing happened in Skyrim. The more I stole, the harder it was to become rich. But give a couple gold coins to a beggar, or buy a guy a drink at the Bee & Barb, and thy cup shall overfloweth. Truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjekkaste (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it has plenty of academic studies: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22Dark+triad%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0CB4QgQMwAGoVChMIsY7-mK3JxwIVA0bbCh0QXgnO. Deleting this article is a 100% ridiculous idea. --Penbat (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You are free to voice your opinion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark triad (1st nomination). Libercht (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead Changes

A description of the dark triad traits is, quite obviously, key information and more important than the other lead content. In fact it's critical to the reader's understanding of the article. Please explain what you mean by abiding by 'English language structure' - I don't think anyone understands what you mean by this. Please also cite the specific part of the manual which suggests the original organization is breaking some rules. The new organization does not flow nearly as well. It, for example, makes much more sense to explain the dark triad before discussing its occasional applications, as is the case, for example, with the Psychopathy article. There were no such complaints until now. Elaboration is appreciated. --Humorideas (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: To emphasize the information below, this article was previously nominated for deletion because people don't understand what the topic is about, and think it's just a summary of negative personality traits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dark_triad_%281st_nomination%29

The dark triad is a subject in psychology that focuses on three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy This sentence provides links to the articles for each trait. This article is about the dark triad, it is not a summary of the personality traits. That information can be found in the body of the article or from the linked articles.

All three dark triad traits are conceptually distinct although empirical evidence shows them to be overlapping. They are associated with a callous-manipulative interpersonal style. This sentence explains that the traits are "conceptually distinct", but doesn't explain how. A summary of each trait thus clarifies the statement, highlighting how they are conceptually distinct. The summary belongs under the statement.

Research on the dark triad is used in applied psychology... This paragraph didn't exist until recently, when I added it in. It explains what the dark triad is. Again, this article is about the dark triad, it is not a summary of three individual personality traits. The lead of an article is to give a quick overview on what the topic is about. In this case, it is a subject in psychology, which is used in applied psychology etc.

The previous version of this article started with this sentence The dark triad is a group of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. OK, it's a group of three personality traits, that doesn't really explain anything. There was no information on what the purpose of this "group" is or why it exists. But following that sentence was a summary of the traits, that doesn't explain anything about the dark triad. It was a poorly written lead. Now it states that the dark triad is a subject in psychology. It's used in applied psychology within a variety of different fields. While it is a group of three different personality traits, science shows them to be overlapping etc. It concisely informs the reader about the topic.

An earlier version of this article was even worse. This is what was written before in the lead, Jakobwitz and Egan carried out a factor analysis and found agreeableness strongly dissociated with these traits, and other factors, such as neuroticism and a lack of conscientiousness, associated with some traits. What is Jakobwitz and Egan? There were no links to what agreeableness is and so on. It was terrible writing and left the reader in the dark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.60.24 (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Concept Gap: Personality Theory

This article has largely relevant topics. Perhaps the most distracting thing in the reading is the labeling of "Perspectives" to describe aspects such as the workplace, internet trolls, etc. This seems to be simply a miscellaneous categorization (although it appears to be rooted in the various arenas in which the dark triad may surface), and the target of my most significant recommendation is either relabeling this section or moving these subsections to other places in the article. Tim Kruper (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)