Thread by @CCCBuryStEd

One of the most effective ways of assessing whether someone has an abusive personality type is to observe their social media interaction over time, particularly how they respond to criticism.There are significant ‘tells’ which indicate a personality type that needs to be avoided.

Obvious behaviour such as trolling, flaming, cyber bullying and cyber harassment are easy *red flags* to watch out for but, even so , are often dismissed as free-speech or banter or seen as less serious because they happen online. BUT online IS IRL (in real life)

There a number of other ‘tells’ which, though less obvious, are often combined with other traits that help build a picture of an online personality. In short: You are not only what you tweet but HOW you tweet it and your online interaction with others plays a significant part.

Here are some of the main signs to watch out for:

TROLLING is a range of behaviours from deliberately inflicting hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny to being deliberately argumentative in order to cause conflict, controversy or misery.

People who troll argue that it is about humour or freedom of speech but, similar to ROASTING, some do not understand the fine line between RIBBING -good natured teasing- or something more ferocious and personal which causes great distress. In short, they don’t know when to stop.

FLAMING is a hostile interaction over the internet. Deliberate flaming, as opposed to flaming as a result of emotional discussions, is carried out by individuals specifically motivated to incite. Flamers specialize in targeting specific aspects of a controversial conversation.

These flamers derive gratification from annoying others but, the more extreme types, seek to humiliate and distress. The more extreme types tend to have a poor moral code, are immature or show psychopathic tendencies.

SEALIONING is a form of trolling/harassment consisting of persistent questions or requests for evidence, while maintaining a pretense of civility & feigning ignorance & politeness. If the target is provoked into making an angry response, the troll can then act as the victim.

Often seen in discussions around race, gender and other topics that attract polarised views. Blocking will be seen as a form of aggression by the sealion feigning interest. Sealioning is often a pack activity although can also be conducted by individuals.

What these tactics have in common is the gratification they seek at the expense of another’s annoyance, embarrassment, humiliation and shame and there is often an element of one or more of the DARK TETRAD in their personalities.

So what is the DARK TETRAD?
It is composed of 4 parts:

*NARCISSISM
*MACHIAVELLIANISM
*PSYCHOPATHY
*SADISM

Two major characteristics of the DARK TETRAD are:

*extreme selfishness
*a lack of empathy for others.

Persons with this personality make up have the ability to cause significant harm and abuse to others in a variety of ways without ANY regard for the feelings, safety, or morality of the victim.
Jonason & Webster devised a quick scale called the Dirty Dozen to identify them.

1. I tend to manipulate others to get my way.
2. I tend to lack remorse.
3.I tend to want others to admire me.
4.I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions.
5.I have used deceit or lied to get my way.
6. I tend to be callous or insensitive.

7.I have used flattery to get my way.
8.I tend to seek prestige or status.
9.I tend to be cynical.
10.I tend to exploit others toward my own end.
11.I tend to expect special favors from others.
12.I want others to pay attention to me.

Looking into what makes up the DARK TETRAD:
NARCISSISM-
Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a DSM-V diagnosis. The more well known stereotypes are superior, grandiose, demanding, prideful, boastful, arrogant, and self-centered but they can also be introverts.

The flip side of narcissism is ECHOISM. For more in echoism, see this link:
drcraigmalkin.com/blog/whats-the…

They need and expect constant admiration, attention and affection and can be abusive when threatened or their needs aren’t being met. The disorder is both inherited and developed in childhood.

MACHIAVELLIANISM
Named after Prince Machiavelli who wrote the Italian book The Prince in the 1500’s.
It outlines a political philosophy on how rulers are to govern their subjects.

Machiavellianism is the adaptation of this philosophy into a personality and as such is a personality construct not a disorder.
It can therefore not be inherited; rather it is a learned behavioral pattern of manipulation and exploitation of others.

Machiavellians are cynical, deceptive & believe it is better to be feared than loved. Unlike Narcissists, they do not make exaggerated claims about their significance or accomplishments.
Unlike Psychopaths and Sadists, they are too calculating to risk vengeful or cruel behaviour

PSYCHOPATHY
Psychopaths are under the Anti-Social Personality Disorder umbrella listed in the DSM-V along with Sociopaths and Sadists.
A psychopath has the ability to create an entire persona in direct contrast to who they really are.

They are very calculating and callous and lack a conscience.
Psychopathics are pathological liars, remorse free, and dangerous.

Their personality is both inherited and developed through a traumatic and abuse childhood.

Psychopaths, unlike Machiavellians and Narcissists, can instantly read the emotions of others and calculate how to use it to their advantage without any emotional response. They have no problem hurting others, but it is always for a purpose, unlike Sadists.

SADISM
Sadists are a part of Anti-Social Personality Disorder now. In the past they had a separate diagnosis under the old DSM formats.
The name Sadism comes from Marquis de Sade (1740-1814) a French philosopher, writer, libertine and the author of 120 Days of Sodom

His works combined philosophy with sexual fantasies and violence. Sadists crave cruelty. It is not clear whether this is inherited, developed or learned. Not all sadism is sexual or involves killing. Sadists find it exciting or pleasurable to inflict pain on others.

When we think of psychopaths, narcissists, machiavellian or sadistic personalities, we tend to look at the extreme end but all these behaviours occur on a spectrum. At some level we all have these traits and that needs to be acknowledged .

It is also CRUCIAL to recognise these personality types in their most benign form. That is not to say that someone possessing one or more of these personality types must be a narcissist, sadist, psychopath or machiavellian but WHAT the traits look like.

So, for example, someone can tick a lot, if not all, of the boxes in the Hare Psychopathy Checklist but IF you think you are a psychopath, the chances are you’re not.
[Read Jon Ronson’s The Psychopath Test for an entertaining look at this].

Online responses that can be hurtful are often dismissed as banter or as Free Speech with those objecting being accused of being easily offended. Often. BUT people using the argument of Free Speech to mitigate what they are saying don’t always understand what Free Speech is.

Free Speech is the right to express an opinion without censorship but the meaning is often subverted to include freedom to abuse, discriminate and worse and often this is by the abusive personality types already mentioned above.

So, what ‘tells’ do we look out for when assessing if an online account- anonymous or not- is showing signs of abusive behaviour?
There are the obvious signs such as:
*Mocking
*Derision
*Disparaging
*Goading
*Inciting
*Taunting.
*Humiliating
*Shaming
*Doxxing
*Pile ons

Each of the above work on a continuum so for each of the ways people can inflict discomfort or distress there’s a much more benign form which is essentially invisible in plain sight but, if continued over a period of time, has the same effect on the target as the more overt form.

Another factor in not recognising these abusive tactics at inception is our tendency to view behaviour differently depending on WHO is doing it.
In other words, what is right for some is not what is right for others.

Sounds crazy, right?

Yet people routinely overlook or ignore behaviour they would consider unedifying or abusive if:
*They know and like the person doing it
*They privately agree with what that person is doing
*They dislike the target
*The behaviour also fulfils some goal for them

What do I mean about this?
One fairly obvious example might be someone raising awareness of abuse joining in the abuse of target because they either do not like them, do not agree with them or they feel the abuse is 'deserved' in some way.

Also:
They may well not like them, agree with them or may feel the abuse being meted out is 'deserved' simply by staying silent.
On the other hand:
They might feel uncomfortable confronting the person meting out the abuse because of the potential for a negative outcome.

It might be that they don't want to be in a confrontational situation or they don't want their relationship with the person being impacted by their involvement.
Either way, abusive tactics used by those we are friendly with, we admire or we love is rarely challenged.

Envy is another factor in why someone might condone or secretly support the abuse. The Tall Poppy Syndrome is a phenomenon where people who have achieved some measure of success or high status are resented, attacked and criticised. It's a way of cutting someone down to size.

Envy is the root of all evil, the saying goes and when faced with someone who may have some or all of the DARK TETRAD traits their reactions will be obsessive and extreme.

The most important factor in all of this is that
PEOPLE USING THESE TACTICS KNOW THEY WILL RARELY BE CHALLENGED AND THEY FEEL EMBOLDENED BY THE KNOWLEDGE.

each of the above work on a continuum so, for each of the ways people can inflict discomfort or distress, there is a much more benign form essentially invisible in plain sight but, if continued over a period of time, has a similarly detrimental effect-the 'drip drip' effect.

There is a collective blindness - a disconnect - to this.

Ask anyone the question : Is there such a thing as 'good' abuse? Most people would be surprised if not shocked at the question and would invariably say 'no'. Some more vociferously and emphatically than others.

BUT
ask if any of them have intervened ( whether privately or in the open) when witnessing abuse & watch their reactions.
Much of this can be attributed to the Bystander Effect
BUT not all.

We need to acknowledge that SOME people feel that some DESERVE the abuse.
Maybe they don't gloat in the open but, certainly in secret, there is an element of SCHADENFREUDE -they relish the attack.

Let's take a look at how some of these traits manifest in a more covert form.

Somewhere in this long thread I deliberately planted 2 mistakes. Most people will ignore it, some may comment as they feel I ought to know but some will point it out and try to ridicule and shame.

The ridiculing & shaming can take several forms:
*Being called stupid or other insults.
*Mocking and taunting using the tweet as a screenshot to invite disparaging comments.
* Tagging in others to incite or invite negative comment.
* Disproportionate obsessing over the error.

The abuse will either be overt or it will be covert.
Obvious taunting/mocking etc falls in the first category but the more covert type of abuse will attempt to get under the skin by using information of particular relevance to the target.
THIS IS KEY to identifying covert abuse.

Common forms of getting under the skin are:
* Digs at someone’s appearance
* Mocking someone’s intelligence
* Disparaging their work
* Alluding to personal information
* Deliberately permeate their friendship circle
* Deliberately posting unflattering or doctored images.

More covert forms that are impervious to outsiders often consist of repeating information that has a particular relevance, for example:
* A word that has a meaning known specifically to the target.
* Mention or posting pictures of nearby towns, tourist resorts etc.

* Partial posting of an address or telephone number local landmark.
The idea being to intimidate, to make the target feel they are being watched, being stalked.
To make them feel they are in the vicinity.

Because if they can create fear, they can incite reaction that is likely to be disproportionate BECAUSE of the heightened level of fear.

The result is they can then claim this is paranoia or mental illness to direct away from the fear they induced in the first place.

Other forms involve trying to ruin the target’s reputation by:
* casting aspersions
* slurs of promiscuity
* claims of criminality - fraud and theft is a popular one.
* impugning, libelling, slandering etc

The abuser wants to SHAME the target into silence.

Not only that.
The abuser wants others to step back, to feel uncomfortable with continued association. In short, they will slur to isolate.