The Dark Triad Test

[aqua493xd]

The dark triad traits are:

- Machiavellianism
- Narcissism
- Psychopathy

Take this test here to see how you are rated for each trait
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/SD3/

Post your results below

[Caldari Ghost]

Messaggio originale di aqua493xd:

Messaggio originale di Calamari Toast:

my statement doesn't require you to suggest otherwise.

Ok then. Well have fun pointing out the obvious then

thanks, I did.

[TGC> The Games Collector]

Scale Mean SD
Machiavellianism | 2.96 | 0.65
Narcissism | 2.97 | 0.61
Psychopathy | 2.09 | 0.63

There's the numbers, whatever they mean...

[Gumball]

Machiavellianism 4.4
Narcissism 4.1
Psychopathy 3.7

Pretty accurate can't argue.

[Xero_Daxter]

Moment of silence for OP.

[Gumball]

Messaggio originale di Not Big Surprise:

3 on machiavellianism
2.2 on narcissism
2.6 on psychopathy

i'm... not entirely sure what these results mean

You're a normie, that's what

[Pulowski]

OP, reply to your thread within 1 hour if ur not gay

*psychopathy level increases*

[sage2001]

M 2.6
N 1
P 1

i actually put some thought into this one. i've never really considered my myself overly manipulative or cynical or anything. interesting.

[Utiviroo]

Machiavellianism: 3.3/5, 30% Site 69% US Adults
Narcissism 1.6/5, 6% Site, 1% US Adults
Psychopathy 1.4/5, 1% Site, 13% US Adults

About what I expected, think test is flawed for another reason, depending on circumstances/situation, we all become what we need to be.

e.g.

With sufficient anger = 100% psychotic
With sufficient pain = 100% Machiavellian

Thinking a bit outside my box for 100% narcissism, desperation/obsession.

Probably works well if you flip it around.

Happy = 0% psycho.
Pleasure/unfocused = 0% Machiavellian
Satisfied = 0% Narcissism.

Maybe too much playing with words and concepts. Fun test I guess.

[Jonathan Sensei]

Machiavellianism - 2.3

Narcissism - 1.9

Psychopathy - 1.1

Have no idea what all that means.

[Stranger]

Messaggio originale di Coffinmaw:

Machiavellianism - 2.3

Narcissism - 1.9

Psychopathy - 1.1

Have no idea what all that means.

you are 1-3 standard deviations below the mean in all categories, according to the table at the very end of the results page.

[Jonathan Sensei]

Messaggio originale di Stranger:

Messaggio originale di Coffinmaw:

Machiavellianism - 2.3

Narcissism - 1.9

Psychopathy - 1.1

Have no idea what all that means.

you are 1-3 standard deviations below the mean in all categories, according to the table at the very end of the results page.

Below the mean...?

Excellent, I'm the -1%.

[TwisterCat]

Machiavellianism: 3
Narcissism 2.7
Psychopathy 2.2

Seems pretty average.

[TwisterCat]

Messaggio originale di OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle:

Many of those questions use really suspect and leading phrasing though.

Truth.

Like, what is "clever manipulation" exactly? Depending on the context, I either agree, or disagree completely.

Half-truths are one thing, and outright misleading people is another.

It creates a scenario where I'm neutral on most things, because of contextual reasoning.

[Stranger]

well the reasoning was that any deviation from the norm could be targeted. whether a person was especially empathetic or the opposite.

so the 'normal' person just says 'neutral' to everything, which ... i mean, you know, that's ... that's not normal.

then in designing the test and creating a social circumstance wherein the test applies, one is ultimately undermining the 'deviations' one seeks to take advantage of. this is the main reason the project was cancelled on russia's side.

the other reason, which the establishment didn't really wany to acknowledge since it was looking for ways to use psychology for statecraft, is that the idea of such a test is problematic. you can't even verify people were telling the truth when they took it, let alone that they understood what you were asking and responded appropriately. such tests can't do anything to sort people; they just filter the rainbow according to ones concepts of diagnosis.

If these tests are taken to be valid, then the entire field is based on nothing. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy; not a scientific discipline.

[Pulowski]

everyone knows the questions are loaded and lazily executed, but what confuses me is that even though i know about surveys, case studies, and experiment papers, the charts and results page at the end is as confusing as the method tables of a stats study come without a explanation for us laymen 🥺