Talk:Victim mentality

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 September 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashtynfitz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Common problems encountered by people with victim mentality

This section is rather speculative and controversial. It doesn't seem to add very much either (just some pointed examples of groups who might have a victim mentality). Is there any evidence that overweight people tend to have a victim mentality and simply fail to lose weight because they pretend to have a genetic problem?

The "basic physics" claim is simply wrong anyway. Physics can't tell you that "small adjustments" equals guaranteed weight loss. On the contrary there is evidence that suggests that obese individuals fail to achieve significant weight loss even when placed on severe calorie restriction diets (due to various mechanisms involving leptin and the body fat set point). "Basic physics" just tells you that energy lost from fat stores equals the difference between expended and consumed calories: it can't tell you how big the gap will be, given alteration of those variables (since it's a biological question how far one variably dynamically responds to another).

I think this section is worthwhile because it provides a an alternative, but logically valid narrative to understand how conflicts are classically framed as an aggressor-victim dynamic. I agree, however, that editors must be vigilant to ensure the page does not become a hodgepodge of justifications for current events. There does exist academic literature that focuses on the subject of victim mentality. BigTenIvyMD (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you as well. I think this section is worthwhile because it is able to show us as readers a different perspective into the victim mentality. We are able to understnad some specific situations and scenarios that could cause someone to develope this mentality. However, I also think that editors need to be wary of the articles they cite. They need to make sure that scholarly articles are being cited and not blogs for example. 173.198.188.32 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

External Link

The external link "Must Jews always see themselves as victims?" goes to an article published in March 2009 in the Independent (U.K.), discussing a purported Jewish "persecution complex." The existence of such a complex is debatable, and the article does not have any other relationship to the topic of the Wikipedia entry "Victim_mentality." The article therefore does not meet Wikipedia's External_links guidelines, and I suggest that the external link be deleted. Dcplumer (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Features - Veracity?

The features section reads like a clinical diagnostic but has no referenced basis and appears to incorporate a significant degree of 'original research'. The criteria are ill-defined to the point of glibness regarding other subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairy Squid (talk • contribs) 07:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with the above on the current glibness of the topic, and I have begun adding current scholarly research to provide original research on the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigTenIvyMD (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The new research helps to clarify the paragraph and bring more validity to what is being said.Naomijk (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Reasons for Deletion

This page is extremely offensive and has no factual basis. None of the information contained here is found in any of the listed sources.

"Victim mentality" is a pejorative term used to shame actual victims of crime, war, illness, etc., but claiming that they are to blame for their misfortunes. Most notably embodied in the "If you didn't want to be raped, you shouldn't have worn that skirt" argument. The term has never been found in any version of the DSM and I can find no empirical data on the concept.

The pages for Victimization, Victimology, and Victim-Blaming are much more factual and there is no valid information on this page to be subsumed by one of those.

The Foundations section asserts that the victim wasn't harmed, was to blame for the perpetrator's actions, could have prevented the event but choose not to in order to achieve victim status, and, lastly, that they are attention-seeking if they desire basic human empathy in the wake of a threat to their life or physical safety.

The entire purpose of the Breaking Out section is to mention that the victim's "condition" is unlikely to improve, which is also the victim's fault.

Lastly, the page has fallen prey to it's own victim mentality and has just let itself take on hateful attitudes toward the unemployed, the overweight, Palestinians, and even Jews.

All of these arguments and belittlements of valid human suffering embody the exact reasoning used by sexual predators to justify their actions and to shame their victims out of seeking legal or medical help. The page is now seeking sympathy in the last days of its futile existence, but it's best to end her misery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberfrauleine (talk • contribs) 09:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A scholar.google.com search of scholarly articles using the term "victim mentality" returns over 5,000 results. Adding the term "psychology" to the search returns over 3,000 citations. Appropriate sources are referenced to in various places in the article. More sourcing is indeed needed. However, the article does not deserve deletion. Memills (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"...and even Jews"

Really? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This nicely illustrates the confusion intentionally caused by abusers with a victim mentality. They are happy to insult victims for being victims, for whining, for seeking attention; they will accuse their actual victim of "playing the victim." The public discourse on this subject has gotten so toxic that it's not unreasonable to assume any mention of "playing the victim" etc. is, in fact, an attack on marginalized populations. I do not believe that's the case here.Spaceboss (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sondra.kinsey: The article would be improved if there was some kind of source to substantiate any of the claims made before the first citation, way down in the Foundations section. I am passing familiar with both psychology and sociology, and pretty sure "Victim Mentality" is not a real academic or clinical concept.

I note the claim that a scholar.google.com search yields thousands of results. If that is so, the article should in the least utilize some of those sources; as is, it really just reads as well-written conjecture. Alienkind (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I support deleting this article as it is. I'm sorry if I muddied the waters by my earlier comments. The lack of sources is alarming. I've had it on my to-do list to rewrite it completely, and still hope to someday, but haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately. 02:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of Wiki policy on EL

Wikipedia says On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view So I to remove an EL because you do not like it and use WP:ELPOV as a rationale does not stack up. B/c that is not what ELPOV means. All EL provide some POV, if ALL the EL were of that POV then it would be an issue. You are therefore free to add OTHER EL on different POVs, not delete the one on an invalid bases.--Inayity (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"For more information," says WP:ELPOV, "see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view — in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight". --Ankimai (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

The entire lead section is written without a single source or reference. This makes the concept seem unsubstantiated by any research or science; even social sciences. There is no "victim mentality" defined in the DSM. If there is no support for the claims in the lead, I question the need for the article at all. Alienkind (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

By lead section, do you mean the intro before the table of contents? Most articles I've seen don't have any cites in the intro -- it's just a quick summary; all the references and sources are footnoted in the rest of the article. dan (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alienkind: Lack of citations in a lead is not itself cause for concern, per MOS:LEADCITE, although uncited claims, of course, are. Let's continue discussion of article improvements in the above #Reasons for Deletion section. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like since you made this comment there have been citation added to the lead section. I think that was a great comment to make and it could have been the reason that a change was made. 173.198.188.32 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Overuse of www.harleytherapy.co.uk

I'm trying to talk myself out of deleting the material from citations 1, 6 and 9. This is literally a blog. - Scarpy (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

More on this point: not a single one of the citations provided appears to a legitimate, relevant authority on the topic of this entry. The closest that comes is this article which describes experiment results in a laboratory setting. Even this, though, seems more like a good foundation on which to perform additional research and less like something that should be cited to prove the existence of a psychological phenomena.

• As has been pointed out, citations 1, 6, and 9 are a blog.
• Citation 2 is from a journal article about ideas of justice as a framing for explaining suffering.
• Citation 3 is an incredibly short opinion piece that theorizes a shift from a culture of victimhood to a culture of bullying.
• Citation 4 is another journal article specifically looking at how people may identify as victims in what the authors refer to as "intractable conflicts," and specifically reference the defeat of the Serbs in 1389, the massacre at Nanking, the Holocaust, and the Palestinian exodus (i.e. a trait exhibited by populations during intractable conflicts, not a personal psychological trait).
• Citation 5 is about how people in a business setting may be targeted for abuse if they possess certain characteristics which make them out to be "potential targets."
• Citation 7 is a bitter and heavily opinionated book.
• Citation 8 is a navigation page on Cambridge University Press with no actual material to use as a reference.
• Citation 10 appears to be another opinion-driven self-help piece.
• Citation 11 is an incredibly dated and clunky blog from a self-proclaimed therapist with very poor reviews according to patient ratings (just 11 of these blogs have been published - the author is not prolific).
• Citation 12 is yet another opinion-driven self-help piece, this one from Psychology Today.
• Citation 13 is the experiment-driven paper I described earlier.
• Citation 14 is a book, apparently for businesspeople, describing tactics to avoid being manipulated.
• Citation 15 is another academic article which seems to be about the potential productivity benefits of shifting from an external to an intern locus of control. Somebody linked this Wikipedia entry to me in an email, and after running through all the sources, I am honestly shocked this has been allowed to stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9500:1497:B0DF:E5E0:B115:FE64 (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey. I added bullet points to your comment. Talpedia (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My take on this is that "victim mentality" is a "new" diagnosis that potential corresponds with current political and social biases. This is... annoying... because it will show up in pop psychology sources without necessarily having the academic material needed to critique it or provide context. The concept itself exactly foreign to psychology itself. If you look at trauma (as i did in the section I wrote) the concept of victimhood and people's relationship with it are important. You also get similar concepts in "learned helplessness" and "post traumatic embitterment disorder". It does seem quite *popular* in the pop-therapy sphere however, so perhaps this article should exist in order to address it and link it to more established concepts. Talpedia (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

According to whom?

This whole concept clearly belongs to a particular theory (or ideology?), and yet everything in the article is stated as fact. It needs to say whose theory is being expounded here, whether the theory has been criticised by others etc., otherwise it is simply not a factual article.

--HairyDan (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Well... from my reading it belongs to a single author with a psych PhD who wrote a pop science book, and to the "blogosphere" as well as "the culture war", but it's started to drip into therapeutic practice. It's quite difficult to know what to do with it though, because they *only* literature talking about this is the literature supporting the concept and it's not really discussed by psychology proper (though there is sociological research into social perceptions of being a victim and some research on concepts like locus of control).

Factual or not, there are a whole bunch of blogs and a couple of books that talk about this concept as though it exists, but not much literature critiquing or empirically testing it. Talpedia (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If the concept primarily belongs to a single author, then surely the article should say so, don't you think? Other articles on concepts that come from a particular belief system, brand of philosophy or political theory explicitly mention the fact, usually in the first sentence (e.g. look up "Übermensch", "Trinity" or "Dictatorship of the proletariat"). The whole thing could easily enough begin with "According to ...". HairyDan (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I would very much like the article say that. In fact, I would like it to say "novel unaccepted diagnosis that has no acceptance within clinical psychiatry, and owes its popularity to moral bias" but I can't find any source that confirms this, or even comments on it. You just have this self supporting bubble of therapist blogs that post about the idea. I tried writing an email to a couple of people to see if I could get them to write something official. I was kinda too busy to follow up with a sociologist who kindly replied (covid), I'm a little guilty about that. What I really want is a psychologist though... because they can place it in the context of other constructs. I've posted about this problem on WP:MED and it's not really unique to those article. Talpedia (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge this into victim?

I'm getting annoyed by this article. All the source are blog post or pop psych books or people who just hapen to use the word "victim mentality" in old sources. It's infuriating seeing pop-psych concept blessed by papers from the 1980s because no one who cares actually cares talk about the concept. Like we have a paper from the 1980s talking about "victim mentality" in the heading, when it's really talking about treating victims (the word is used once in the piece) and it just feels *stupid* the we are using a source from the 1980s to discuss treatment for a concept that doesn't really exist, rather than dicussing treatment victims in general.Talpedia (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Up to date citations

Overall, I think this article is off to a good start. However, I noticed that the majority of the citations from this article are pretty old. I think there are other sources out there that can either improve on the information we have been given or they can prove to us that there have been changes in the victim mentality research. I also think that something good to add to this article would be an example of the victim mentality. There are lots of traits and thoughts given for someone who would struggle with this. But I think that a good example scenario would really help readers understand the severity of a victim mentality. 173.198.188.32 (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Citations

The article cited most of it's information, but the citations have not been updated in quite a while. This means that there might be more information that has been found in the past few years that is not included on the page. Not just information that is not included, but there could be information that is incorrect now. 205.185.99.30 (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Oooh, student editor. So... it might be worth noting that I think that this concept is kinda of WP:FRINGEy and pop sciency. When I dug into this it mostly shows up on the pages of therapeutic blogs - but not really in papers - and then there was a psychologists using the term in their own popular book. I basically think this is a motivated diagnosis without clinical support that is conflating valid concepts that show up in trauma, and victimology in general and sort of turning this into a "personality disorder" style diagnosis... because this fits in with certain people's ideologies. Of course I'm rather getting into WP:FORUM territory here.

So my thoughts are firstly a warning : finding good quality for sources for this might be hard. And second a thought that... wouldn't it be fun it some academic somewhere published a paper or a blog post on niche motivated diagnoses, and their popularisation on youtube, and therapeutic circles and how this is potentially harmful. That'd be a really cool paper... that if published in a respectable way could be cited here. Talpedia (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)