Since its introduction in 2002, Dark Triad (DT) research– the simultaneous study of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism – has exploded, with the publication of hundreds of peer reviewed articles, books and chapters, as well as coverage by the lay media. Unfortunately, there are several limitations to this research that are unrecognized or ignored. These limitations include 1) the treatment of DT constructs as unidimensional contrary to evidence for their multidimensionality, 2) the indistinctness between current measures of Machiavellianism and psychopathy, 3) the use of multivariate statistical approaches that pose statistical and interpretive difficulties, 4) failure to test DT relations directly against one another, and 5) methodological limitations related to convenience sampling and reliance on mono-method approaches. We discuss these problems in detail and describe solutions that can result in a more robust, replicable, and meaningful literature moving forward.
And here’s a study empirically criticising the dark triad by demonstrating that it offers no explanatory benefits over studying psychopathy in isolation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25248015/ . Though again, this is not an epistemic criticism.
Let me explain the epistemic problem to you. The problem is that these dark triad traits are social constructs. Psychology doesn’t generally have a problem with scientists inventing whatever constructs they like, as long as they then proceed to study those constructs empirically. But the initial definition of the constructs is not empirical. You can say anything you like in a hypothesis, define any construct, and the relevance or validity of the construct isn’t really questioned.
Let me give you an example. Suppose I’m a psychologist, and I want to study the personality trait “Black criminalism”. Which I define as the set of personality traits causing criminal behaviour in black people. I then go to a prison, interview a hundred black prisoners on what motivates their crimes, I formulate a measure of “black criminalism” that I can apply to the general population, and I successfully demonstrate through statistical modelling that “black criminalism” is associated with lawbreaking behaviour. Now, according to the rules of how psychology is done, this is considered empirically valid. I used real science at every stage of the process to inform and develop my hypotheses and to confirm them. But guess what? It’s all racist pseudoscience! Because the choice to associate blackness and criminalism wasn’t empirically informed. And it’s going to have horrible consequences for society if I publish that research.
That’s what’s going on with the dark triad. You can define psychopathy and narcissism however you like, and as long as you answer your questions about this made up construct with science, it’s considered valid and can be published in a journal. But it’s still bad science.
I’ll quote from the abstract of one of that article’s primary sources on criticism on the dark triad, https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/mbkr8
Here’s another source discussing empirical problems with the dark triad, but I want you to keep in mind that this is an analysis of well-defined technical issues with the empirical methods, and it doesn’t do very much to address the overarching problems with the model, which fall more under the purview of epistemic philosophy than statistical methods: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/personality-and-its-problems/201907/don-t-believe-the-hype-shining-light-the-dark-triad
And here’s a study empirically criticising the dark triad by demonstrating that it offers no explanatory benefits over studying psychopathy in isolation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25248015/ . Though again, this is not an epistemic criticism.
And here’s a short but effective news article on the problem: https://www.science.org/content/article/does-dark-triad-personality-traits-make-you-more-successful
Let me explain the epistemic problem to you. The problem is that these dark triad traits are social constructs. Psychology doesn’t generally have a problem with scientists inventing whatever constructs they like, as long as they then proceed to study those constructs empirically. But the initial definition of the constructs is not empirical. You can say anything you like in a hypothesis, define any construct, and the relevance or validity of the construct isn’t really questioned.
Let me give you an example. Suppose I’m a psychologist, and I want to study the personality trait “Black criminalism”. Which I define as the set of personality traits causing criminal behaviour in black people. I then go to a prison, interview a hundred black prisoners on what motivates their crimes, I formulate a measure of “black criminalism” that I can apply to the general population, and I successfully demonstrate through statistical modelling that “black criminalism” is associated with lawbreaking behaviour. Now, according to the rules of how psychology is done, this is considered empirically valid. I used real science at every stage of the process to inform and develop my hypotheses and to confirm them. But guess what? It’s all racist pseudoscience! Because the choice to associate blackness and criminalism wasn’t empirically informed. And it’s going to have horrible consequences for society if I publish that research.
That’s what’s going on with the dark triad. You can define psychopathy and narcissism however you like, and as long as you answer your questions about this made up construct with science, it’s considered valid and can be published in a journal. But it’s still bad science.