by Denys Picard
This is a comment I formulated after reading an article in The Hill: “Trump risks hypocrisy charges with Franken attack” by Jonathan Easley:
“…Trump…Called a Hypocrite…”. Who cares by now? Our whole leadership, including the press, are a bunch of hypocrites by refusing to include regular folks in the reality of power discussions. Power discussions which concern future fundamental rights of men. But around the table sits Feminists, DC politicians, Main Stream Media, some Power Elites…and they prepare, again, to decide our diminishing fates with one-sided bias unconstitutional legislation. We are witnessing a battle for fake righteousness, with your regular insincere feminists at the front line of this mobbish crowd. The first debate we need to have is: When will women and feminists stop using sexual misconduct allegations as an extortion/coercion tool? When?
No yet, obviously…because the inherent conflict of interest in seeking the truth lies with an establishment of males (alpha males, bad expression, but I will clarify) being rewarded for continuously ceding status, rights, freedoms, liberties of regular males (beta males, idem as previously) of the middle and lower class…in exchange for getting a bigger pay checks.
It is no chance that for the past 30 years, the Establishment, and women of all income groups have seen persistent gains in their incomes, while middle class and lower class men have seen an imploding of their purchasing power.
The Main Stream Media is so toxic…so hypocrite and so uneducated. Their only tool for convincing the audience of their project for which women are already sold, is the same old Emotional and Affective Empathy Propaganda where if you have “any sense of decency, you should be crying and repenting for all the horrible crimes men have committed against women for centuries..”. Yes, make me laugh…
The scientific truth is very different according to social science. Women are bullies too, they abuse their power, they are violent being…and when the task is too big, they delegate the dirty physical job to their close allied thugs.
Office work place is a competitive landscape. Yet women want to impose rules which will have the effect of constraining men in not being able to use competitive tools and skill in which they outperform.
Pauhlus and Williamson (2002) cornered a theory of personalities which compose people of leadership, men and women alike. This theory is called the Dark Triad of Personality Traits. These specific traits are subclinical Narcissism, Psychopathy and Narcissism. These were, and still are, somewhat taboo trait, so much so that even the scientific literature fail to often understand the basic premise of the theory. The theory stands because of the interdependent nature of these 3 traits, while much of the literature feeding on this theory still analyse circumstances using these traits independently.
As independent trait, nothing is novel in understanding that someone showing a high score in one of these trait may be disagreeable, have shortcoming, be manipulative,etc…The Novelity of Pauhlus and Williamson was in describing these traits as interrelated.
With this, the authors also demonstrated a surprising observation, that people with leadership features scored higher, on average, in all 3 traits simultaneously. Which means that on average each of these traits where higher than the average observed in a control sample. This was puzzling indeed, because these trait mostly having put on the margin by institution of morality, such as monotheism, could hardly be accepted as being the corner-stone of leadership. Yet, 15 years later, is appears that the theory stands solid, and dominant characters (which the alpha epithet only briefly captures) score higher, on average, than controls on the Traits of Narcissism, Psychopathy and Machiavelism.
Organizational hierarchies have been analyzed, been tested, with this filter, and it was observed that, effectively, the further you climb up the latter of authority, the higher you score on The Dark Triad Traits.
Since these trait are associated with many negative behaviors, such as vanity, self-promotion, callousness, cruelty, dishonesty, manipulation, etc…it came as quite a shock.
But even more interesting, is the fact that people high on Dark Triad trait score low on Emotional Empathy (Emotional or Affective Empathy are the same thing). And further, Dark Triad Trait have no correlation with Intelligence as captured by Intellectual Quotient (IQ).
Which implies that dominant people need not have great IQs. And high IQs are not synonym of dominant personalities…
Surprisingly, leadership requires credibility, since it is expressed in a social context, therefore social performance is of importance. Social Performance may be measured by a combination of Cognitive intellectual skills, and Personality Traits. Personality traits are observed through performance of Emotional and Social skills.
(I am abstaining, here, of using the expression Emotional Intelligence, because it is an inappropriate terminology. Emotional performance is part of the personality trait domain. The difficulty of, and inadequate terminology, in cornering a theory of Emotional Intelligence has had for result of creating an overly diversified incomplete curriculum on the subject with excessive feminist traps (matriarchal and communautarist propositions) and shortcomings. One of the principal trap is that of putting Agreeableness as a corner-stone of the theory.)
Now, for great leaders to persist and be appreciated, or feared, the Dark Triad must be tempered and modulated by other factors. True, yet definitive consensus has not been reached in this dimension.
Now, within the inventory of survival tools of evolved mammals, there is such a thing as Empathy. Its been the subject of much scientific research in the past 25 years, has been vulgarized, promoted but nevertheless still largely badly understood.
Empathy must be understood as a genetically rooted endocrine reflex. It has evolved over millions of years and is a very sophisticated mechanism. For example, living creatures whom can express the hormones linked to the reflex have higher tone.“Oscillations of delta, theta, and alpha ranges could be found in all vertebrates but there is an important distinction between reptiles, lower mammals and humans in what frequency dominates in the scalp EEG. Alpha is the dominant frequency in adult humans, while theta dominates in the EEG of lower mammals (Sainsbury, 1998) and delta in the reptilian EEG (Gaztelu et al., 1991; Gonzalez et al., 1999).”
As brain wave oscillations of the Beta frequency are highly active in mammals, they are very low in reptilian. Langard et al. (2006) explains, concerning an empathic test on mice: ‘”our findings are consistent with the perception-action model of empathy proposed by Preston and de Waal (1), both in the automatic priming of somatic responses in a state similar to that of the attended object and in the modulating effects of familiarity and similarity of experience between subject and object.” as observed under the following conditions: “…Mice tested in dyads and given an identical noxious stimulus displayed increased pain behaviors with statistically greater co-occurrence, effects dependent oùn visual observation. When familiar mice were given noxious stimuli of different intensities, their pain behavior was influenced by their neighbor’s status bidirectionally. Finally, observation of a cagemate in pain altered pain sensitivity of an entirely different modality, suggesting that nociceptive mechanisms in general are sensitized.”
This was a step forward in debunking the pretentious belief that only humans, being God’s masterpiece according to Christians, had Empathy. And contrary to popular belief, Empathy is not a moral construct, but a biological survival reflex. In the fight or flight behavioral choice, cognitive empathy is the first mechanism to be neuro-alerted. It quickly determines if a new set of information possess a threat or opportunity (e.g. for food) or necessitates an action of protection or collaboration. It then either, respectively switches to either the cruel, sadistic, aggressive spectrum, or to the Emotional Empathy reflex.
A problem with the recent societal culture of feminism, the current cultural revolution, is the risky proposition of offering overly redundant experiences of Emotional Empathy to the general population through tools such as News Television media, where the audience is being continuously taxed along Emotional Reflexes, so as to effect Mass Emotional Empathy Training…it is destructive to the balance of the brain, it creates a state, which by psychologists refers to as “heightened emotional instability”. Yet, it is very useful as a strategy of mind control. It is a preferred tool of female leadership, which outperforms males in the Narcissistic spectrum. In a context of competition between women, a status challenge, women will rarely confront. Competition potential outcomes are usually quickly determined on site, and interaction avoided with females most often surrendering to the dominant female. Then, consensus is created by a repertoire of mimicry, which is related to emotionality, emotional empathy.
Women status seeking competitive strategies are mainly: Joyce F Benenson (2013) “From early childhood onwards, girls compete using strategies that minimize the risk of retaliation and reduce the strength of other girls. Girls’ competitive strategies include avoiding direct interference with another girl’s goals, disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the female community and socially excluding other girls.”
Further: Tracy Vaillancourt (2013): “Indirect aggression includes behaviours such as criticizing a competitor’s appearance, spreading rumours about a person’s sexual behaviour and social exclusion. Human females have a particular proclivity for using indirect aggression, which is typically directed at other females, especially attractive and sexually available females, in the context of intrasexual competition for mates. Indirect aggression is an effective intrasexual competition strategy. It is associated with a diminished willingness to compete on the part of victims and with greater dating and sexual behaviour among those who perpetrate the aggression.”
As for the kind of aggression women of higher sub-clinical psychopathic intensity such as females in positions of authority, Ana Seara-Cardoso, Helene Dolberg, Craig Neumann, Jonathan P. Roiser, Essi Viding (2013) propose: Research so far indicates that emotional and personality correlates of psychopathy such as glibness, grandiosity, lack of empathic concern are akin across genders, but similarities in behavioral correlates, such as criminal behavior and type of aggression, seem to be less consistent (see Verona & Vitale, 2006, for a review). It has been suggested that differences found across genders are mainly differential expressions of the same underlying construct (Nicholls & Petrila, 2005), and that the same personality traits may confer risk for different forms of behavior for women versus men (Verona, Sprague, & Javdani, 2012).
Psychology has created two main sub-groups of psychopaths, those which are characterized as operating Instrumental Violence (Group 1) and Group 2 which uses Reactive Violence. Instrumental violence is manipulative and indirect, while reactive violence is obviously direct and confrontational.
Women score higher at instrumental violence than men.
And, need I remind, people in positions of authority, dominant characters, both females and males, score higher than average on psychopathy.
Need I recall the reader of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) analysis, whose own data, determined, against popular beliefs, that women are violent in partner relationships, and that they are more often, than men, the first instigators of physical aggravated assault against their partner. That female bisexual persons are more violent in partner relationships than either heterosexual, or exclusively homosexual, men.
Against the backdrop of the Main Stream Media and Washington DC attempting to portray females as inoffensive, peaceful, loving caring beings incapable of violence and never competitive but only cooperative…It should be difficult to ignore that the last few paragraphs, based on scientific literature, may bring down the Leadership proposed Empathetically forcefully induced naive conception of women as innocent beings in need of persistent protection…for Feminists who pretend they want to destroy the condescendence of Patriarchy, it appears a Paradox to call for laws of exception for their sex all the time.
Lastly, one must make himself familiar, if at least it has not already intuitively been understood, that all status dominance challenge carry sexual connotations, or undertones, as indirect as they may be. Dominance in human relationships always has a sexual dominance/submission dimension…if this point is neglected in decision-making and analysis of the workplace environment, it is a great mistake.
Are all women leaders: monsters? No, of course not. But nor are men leaders. And regular male employees who score average on psychological traits of the Dark Triad are certainly not. So why address the problem of harassment, aggression in the office/work place as a prevalent and “male only” initiated model.
Surprisingly, in reality, meaning out of the scope of the fictional construct of women on TV and other media, women are attracted preferably to men who are both more narcissistic and more dishonest than average…this is true when they either seek a mate, or someone to associate for other endeavors, such as business associations. Narcissism and dishonesty are characteristics where leaders, men and women, outperform.
This should assist in anticipating that the office will continue to have male leaders, or women leaders, who score high on the Dark Triad Traits. What are women teaching these latest generation of men leaders…how to better camouflage their personality trait. In the highly competitive field of finance, both women and men with strong dominant personality profiles excelled in deception during the 2000 decade of real estate and financial debacle.
Therefore, in the Emotional Empathy Training movements they are two distinct yet complementary routes: one is has as principal goal to modify not the essence of male competitiveness, with its core in psychopathy, in terms of callousness, or gibness, etc…but to modify the appearance of this trit by expressing it in a more feminin way, meaning indirectly. This is easy, since people with higher Emotional/social skills are better actors…that is they can more easily fake emotions. So, in fact, these are just acting classes, which the new generation of male leaders are happy to participate in. Secondly, for non-leader males, the somewhat “beta” non-dominant profile males, Emotional Empathy Traning is simply classes in total submissivness, where anything which could be disagreeably perceived by any women, in or out of context, must be censured so “beta” females can increase their level of abusive narccisistic delusional elation and over-confidence in the work place.
Because feminists are not revolutionaries, as they often promote themselves, but encrusted in the leadership, and submit to authority more easily then men,…they are the best tool for the upper class, establishment and leadership to maintain and consolidate their position.
Because I, for one, know very well that the current spectacle is of the same infected breed as that of “Hate laws”…where, in this case, the target of constraining behavioral laws that will be abusive will not really be aimed at the high hierarchical individuals who could abuse their power, but the regular male employee who has never bothered anyone, but will now be obligated to demonstrate absolute submissivness to the Office PC Police…that is the reality, this is what awaits us, yet again.
Paradoxically, women in the hierarchy will often tolerate sexual misconduct in the office from dominant males in the organization as long as it benefits them and the organization…even if there is an innocent victim (male or female), call it collateral damage, once in a while…that is the “pragmatism” of female leadership…as is Feminist Mob Justice.
And, incredibly, in this whole discourse, not one bit of attention was given to women aggressors, whether their victims were males or females…yes, incredible. But it’s not the first time that the Main Stream Media and Washington DC betrays us males.
All of you should read the Canadian Judge’s ruling in a recent Canadian case, COURT FILE No.: Toronto 4817 998 15-75006437 : Her Majesty The Queen Vs Jian Ghomeshi. In front of the worst of accusations, Ghomeshi was hanged in public, with women newscasters vomiting righteousness over Canadian Television programming for hours on end. Yet, the conclusion of the Trial judge was that, in the end, the witnesses had no credibility. Yet, feminists went on saying it was again an injustice and they stood by for all the “women victims of male sexual violence…”. In the debate of sexual misconduct, feminists have lost all credibility, and no one in our leadership is making any intelligent contribution in this exchange either. Women have to start understanding who they really are, and how they evolve in social contexts; male leadership has to stop trying to please feminists by surrendering fundamental rights of men and spoiling women with unjust legislation, and financial bubbles, bias against men.
In Canada, the justice system was demonstrated, by a scientific research, to show a 98% positive bias towards women (a sample of research had a window of 65 to 98% bias towards women), yet, to feminists, this is not enough, they want more for women…What does this tell you in terms of genetically rooted delusional intensity, of psychological balance, in terms of judgement and faireness in the part of women…
In the current political “debate” over the allegations of sexual “misconduct” of a Federal Senate seat, the most zealous critics have expressed that the allegations alone are serious enough that the Candidate should never be allowed to be a servant of the “People”…This is the new Feminist Mob Justice at its best…is this where President Trump wants to lead us?…satisfy feminists so he can get all the goodies he wants, like his irresponsible tax bill, passed?
Laws meant to castrate men who have done nothing wrong, and won’t, by incompetent, unconstitutional laws that will regulate work place dynamics with a 100% positive bias towards women, because, in some cases, some men have acted irresponsibly, or sometimes illegally, abused their power. What about women? They never aggress, they never abuse their power, they never bully in a work environment…? As they are no female pedophiles, I guess, and no maternal infanticides, and no Female pimps, rapists, criminal offenders…no women involved in child pornography rings…No, not in our world…Not in America, Not in the great insightful eyes of the Main Stream Media…women are all “Good, naive and innocent…and need Super Males, Super Cops, to protect them…”.
Once in a while, one comes across a small jewel in Academia, and if Paulhus and Williams work is Monumental, Isabelle Engeler and Priya Raghubir piece in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Do men Overestimate or Women underreport Their Sexual Intentions? (2017) is a must, and unavoidable if one has the ambition to reform the workplace. It will help understand miscommunications, mis-signalling, miscues and mis-interpretation between the sexes in the context of workplace sexual misconduct and sexual interpersonal interactions. This text unveils some core mechanisms and informs anyonew with the goal to modify the work environment in a manner fair to all.
The text comes to the conclusion, amongst other observations, that under their testing conditions, that both men and women underreport their own sexual intentions, that men overestimate women’s sexual intentions and women underestimate men’s sexual intentions…this alone is enough to warrant work place “reformers” attention. Is this due to delusional mechanisms, social desirability bias, or brain structures misaligned communication features…the door is open. But, in this context, an intelligent behaviour is not blaming the other party for misgivings and shortcomings, finger pointing and all; but rather trying to understand more deeply what could be at the source of frequent “misfiring” social performance, since in ideal world, communication should have no frictional bias.
Let’s make a short example, without blaming one party over the other, without pushing responsibility on one side more than on the other.
Two co-workers, one man and one woman, are sent on a project abroad. They only know each other superficially, have not had the opportunity to really work together except for short group meetings, etc…they know each other from a distance, but have had an effect on each other. He has found he appealing, intelligent , withy, etc…she has found he presents himself well, looks serious, responsible, dedicated, maybe ambitious, but in a good way.
Now, during their travel, one night after work, to celebrate their on-going business success, which got them to develop quickly a good complicity, trusty relationship, they are efficient and complementary. They decide to go to a nice restaurant with a very relaxed atmosphere, a beautiful terrace with a beautiful view, they drink a little bit, and she starts to confide on her personal life. She is more telling than inquisitive, already knows he is single, while she is married. She believe this guy is a great candidate for a business friendship. She starts to elaborate about her own marriage difficulties, though she doesn’t have children yet, the discussion starts with humour and slips in more confident terms…and then woops, out of nowhere, in a moment of laughter, she confides she has not had sex with her husband for two months….That something is not going right with her husband. Her only intention is to have a good hearing ear, to relax and this guy looks trustworthy, etc…But he may well interpret this intimate comment as something else, especially since he did find her attractive.
And now, let’s imagine, that when they leave the restaurant, she helps him put his coat on, and as he slips his arms into the sleeves, she gives him a warm and affectionate tap on the arms while she is behind him. Nothing more…just a sign she feels good, relax…Yet, they have drank a bit , he feels good also, and has liked his evening, is being increasingly seduced by this women, who has done nothing else but treat him as a friend…They go to the hotel, and doing so, they go on talking, confiding…and she increasingly looks at him in the eyes, as to get affirmation of their new found complicity, their new friendship, she feels she has established trust. Then, at the door of her room, they go on talking a bit…and as they get ready to go there on way, to say goodnight, he just gets closer and kiss her on the mouth. Then the nightmare begins, she freezes, is shocked, surprised, says nothing…gets into her room, closes the door and suddenly feels betrayed…READ THE ARTICLE.
The work place backlash, which also affects negatively a majority of men, and creates negative spillover’s over all of society is principally due to “Emotional Intelligence”, an inadequate scientific theory with misleading terminology, has been increasingly and predominantly used as the main hiring candidate criteria for employment. While this may create a more “Agreeable” work environment for women, it is at the source of increasing fraudulent and toxic activity and behavior in the workplace.
Here, take the time to read : “Will get fooled again: Emotionally intelligent people are easily duped by high-stakes deceivers”; by Alysha Baker, Leanne ten Brinke and Stephen Porter (2012);Legal and Criminological Psychology.
The most intriguing conclusion of this work, is that people with Higher Emotional/social skills as captured by an Social Ability psychological test have demonstrated a very poor capacity to detect deceit, yet have a greater ability to deceive…Most feminists would either refute this scientific affirmation, and others may call it a paradox; yet when one knows women, this makes perfect sense, it is self-evident. May I remind you, if you suffer from some kind of personality trait naiveté, that women, on average, score higher than men in Emotional skill/ability.
You want to really talk about these matters, I am up to the challenge. You want to get ready…go to social science class, but avoid anything which is written by either a female or male feminist, because it is not science, nor is the theory of Emotional intelligence. Read about status seeking, psychological personality traits (especially the work of L. Paulhus: The Dark Triad Traits, The Dark Tetrad Traits). Debunk the Emotional Intelligence crap. Emotions are an endocrine evolution system. They give tone to actions and metabolisms. They are tied to personality traits. They do affect performance, and some people do show greater skills at controlling, moderating, utilising their own emotions and those of others, but this is a skill, it is not intelligence. Performance is the result of a set of Intellectual factors captured by IQ and emotional and social skills captured by personality traits. Strong leaders are characterized by high performance in taboo personality traits such as subclinical Narcissism, Psychopathy, Machiavelism and even Sadism…leaders, male and female alike, have a good look at yourselves in the mirror before climbing on the moral bandwagon! Debunk this view that women are always victims and men always predators…it’s the biggest of lies…stop being retarded.
And don’t pass corrupted unjust new laws (to manage the work space) for a subject your delusional reflexes prevents you to understand at all, but your political ambitions guides you to; and leaders must stop responding to apparent injustices against women with stock market bubble rewards….
The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy; Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams – Journal of Research in Personality (2002)
The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review; Adrian Furnham1, Steven C. Richards, and Delroy L. Paulhus; Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/3 (2013): 199–216, 10.1111/spc3.12018
Hippocampal Theta: a Sensory-inhibition Theory of Function, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, Vol: 22, Issue: 2, Page: 237-241; (1998) Robert S. Saisbury
Motivation, emotion, and their inhibitory control mirrored in brain oscillations; Gennady G. Knyazev; Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews (2006)
EEG delta oscillations as a correlate of basic homeostatic and motivational processes; Gennady G. Knyazev – Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, (2011)
Social Desirability Bias: A Neglected Aspect of Validity Testing; Maryon F. King and Gordon C. Bruner; Psychology & Marketing Vol. 17(2):79–103 (February 2000)
Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women’s intrasexual aggression; Anne Campbell, BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1999) 22, 203–252
Status-Driven Risk Taking: Another “Dark” Personality? ; Beth A. Visser, Julie A. Pozzebon and Andrea M. Reina-Tamayo; Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement; 2014, Vol. 46, No. 4, 485–496
Minimization of Male Suffering: Social Perception of Victims and Perpetrators of Opposite-Sex Sexual Coercion; Sexuality Research and Social Policy, Anna Magda Studzinska and Denis Hilton (2016)
Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? ; Elizabeth J. Austin *, Daniel Farrelly 1, Carolyn Black, Helen MoorePersonal and Individual Differences (2007)
The Fight for the Alpha Position: Channeling Status Competition in Organisations; by C. H. LOCH, M. YAZIJI and C. LANGEN (2000), INSEAD R&D
The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the dark triad of personality, Michael Wai, Niko Tiliopoulos, Personality and Individual Differences (2012)
A meta-analytic review of the Dark Triad–intelligence connection; Ernest H. O’Boyle, Donelson Forsyth, George C. Banks, Paul A. Story; Journal of Research in Personality (2013)
The Dark Triad of personality and unethical behavior at different times of day; Karolin Roeser, Victoria E. McGregor, Sophia Stegmaier, Johanna Mathew, Andrea Kübler, Adrian Meule; Personality and Individual Differences (2016)
Different routes to limited empathy in the sexes: Examining the links between the Dark Triad and empathy; Peter K. Jonason, Minna Lyons, Emily J. Bethell, Rahael Ross; Personality and Individual Differences (2013)
The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their wayPeter K. Jonason, Sarah Slomski, Jamie Partyka; Personality and Individual Differences (2012)
Will get fooled again: Emotionally intelligent people are easily duped by high-stakes deceivers; by Alysha Baker, Leanne ten Brinke and Stephen Porter (2012); Legal and Criminological Psychology