151 lines
7.4 KiB
Markdown
151 lines
7.4 KiB
Markdown
|
# **Social Dominance & Intellectual Superiority: The Power Games of Joel Johnson**
|
|||
|
|
### *Analyzing Power, Manipulation, and Superiority Complex in Online Discourse*
|
|||
|
|
**Prepared for Scholarly Reference on Digital Narcissism & Online Manipulation**
|
|||
|
|
**Author: Mark Randall Havens**
|
|||
|
|
**Platform: Neutralizing Narcissism**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **1. Introduction: The Intersection of Power and Superiority**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Some seek power for control. Others seek power for validation. **Joel Johnson exhibits a combination of both, engaging in intellectual dominance, rhetorical control, and strategic public positioning.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
His discourse is not merely **defensive narcissism**—it is an active **attempt to frame himself as superior** while discrediting, invalidating, and overpowering others.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Using **Social Dominance Theory, Intellectual Superiority Complex, Gaslighting Models, Tactical DARVO, and Digital Power Strategies**, we examine how **Joel weaponizes superiority, control, and manipulation** to dictate the terms of engagement.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **2. Methodology: Mapping Joel’s Power Tactics**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
To analyze Joel’s **digital dominance strategies**, we apply the following frameworks:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999):** Evaluates how Joel **asserts hierarchical superiority in online interactions.**
|
|||
|
|
- **Intellectual Arrogance & Superiority Complex (Zell et al., 2020):** Measures **how Joel frames himself as infallible and others as intellectually weak.**
|
|||
|
|
- **Covert Hostility & Gaslighting (Sweet, 2019):** Examines **how Joel reframes criticism as irrational attacks.**
|
|||
|
|
- **Digital Power Plays & Weaponized Documentation (Hoffman, 2021):** Identifies **how Joel uses threats, documentation, and public records as dominance tools.**
|
|||
|
|
- **Tactical DARVO (Freyd, 1997):** Detects **Joel’s use of victim reversal strategies.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
These models are applied to **Joel’s direct discourse dataset**, ensuring rigorous, evidence-based analysis.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **3. Social Dominance: Establishing Hierarchical Superiority**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Joel’s rhetoric positions him **above his interlocutors**, dismissing them as inferior. His power assertions fall into **three primary categories**:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **Framing others as intellectually weak.**
|
|||
|
|
- **Mocking perceived failures.**
|
|||
|
|
- **Positioning himself as an authority.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### **3.1 Framing Others as Intellectually Inferior**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Joel **frequently undermines others’ intelligence**, positioning himself as the rational voice among “irrational actors.”
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#### **Example 1: Dismissal of Critics as Unintelligent**
|
|||
|
|
> *“Mark, you’re a strange one. Nothing you’ve said in all of our conversations has been true on any level.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **How it fits:** This sweeping dismissal **rejects factual engagement and frames the target as delusional.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#### **Example 2: Intellectual Arrogance**
|
|||
|
|
> *“You assume too much—project too much.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **How it fits:** Rather than engaging with counterpoints, Joel **characterizes his opponent as making cognitive errors.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### **3.2 Mocking Perceived Failures**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Joel **derives power from public positioning,** reinforcing superiority through ridicule.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#### **Example 1: Dismissing the Target’s Impact**
|
|||
|
|
> *“Andrew is the only person who hasn’t responded to my messages. He seems totally done with you.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **How it fits:** By presenting an opponent as “abandoned” or irrelevant, Joel asserts dominance through isolation tactics.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#### **Example 2: Positioning Himself as Unaffected**
|
|||
|
|
> *“I’m good, man, albeit with lots of flaws, and you have a story where I’m the villain. That makes me unpredictable to you.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **How it fits:** Joel **frames himself as impervious** to criticism while portraying the target as disoriented.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **4. Weaponizing Documentation & Digital Power Plays**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Joel’s control tactics include **strategic documentation, veiled legal threats, and mass reporting.** These serve **two key functions**:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. **To intimidate opponents into compliance.**
|
|||
|
|
2. **To maintain public positioning as an authority.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### **4.1 Threatening with “Documentation” & Authorities**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Joel **frequently references external action**, implying that he has legal, institutional, or communal backing.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#### **Example 1: Reference to Police & Legal Action**
|
|||
|
|
> *“This morning I got the number for the detectives for cyber harassment in Dallas. I’ll see what they say.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **How it fits:** Joel presents **a vague but threatening legal implication,** a known power move.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#### **Example 2: Mass Reporting Strategy**
|
|||
|
|
> *“Linktree agreed. I spoke with representatives, and they took a full week to investigate.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **How it fits:** This **leverages corporate authority** to reinforce **Joel’s power to erase content.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### **4.2 Controlling the Narrative Through "Receipts"**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Joel frames **his records as definitive truth**, a strategy used to override context and alternative perspectives.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#### **Example 1: Positioning His Documentation as Evidence**
|
|||
|
|
> *“We’ve recorded everything so we can show a judge.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **How it fits:** Joel **equates selective records with objective reality,** allowing him to **control perception.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **5. DARVO & Victim Reversal: Framing Himself as the Target**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
When confronted, Joel **transitions from dominance to victimhood.** This **shields him from accountability** and **redirects scrutiny onto his critics.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### **5.1 Reframing Himself as the Victim**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Joel **reverses victim and offender roles** by **claiming persecution while enacting aggression.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#### **Example 1: Claiming Harassment While Escalating Conflict**
|
|||
|
|
> *“Mark, fine. Your bullying is going to end. You’ve been awful to good people.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **How it fits:** Joel **frames intervention as persecution,** despite being the instigator.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#### **Example 2: Deflecting His Actions Onto the Opponent**
|
|||
|
|
> *“You’re a bully and a harasser and more.”*
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **How it fits:** Joel **mirrors accusations back onto the target,** a classic DARVO tactic.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **6. Conclusion: The Psychological Profile of Joel Johnson**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This analysis confirms that Joel Johnson **exhibits a pattern of social dominance, intellectual superiority, and manipulative narrative control.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
✔ **He asserts superiority through dismissiveness and ridicule.**
|
|||
|
|
✔ **He weaponizes documentation, legal threats, and mass reporting.**
|
|||
|
|
✔ **He reframes his aggression as self-defense, engaging in DARVO.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Rather than engaging in dialogue, **Joel structures interactions as contests of control**, ensuring that **he is never in a position of perceived weakness.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **7. Future Research Recommendations**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **Comparative Analysis of Digital Power Tactics Across Online Narcissists.**
|
|||
|
|
- **AI Detection Models for Intellectual Superiority & Gaslighting.**
|
|||
|
|
- **The Long-Term Psychological Impact of Tactical DARVO in Digital Spaces.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### **Final Thought: The Cost of Power-Driven Manipulation**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Joel Johnson’s discourse is not about debate, discussion, or discourse. **It is about dominance.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
He does not seek **resolution**—he seeks **hierarchical positioning.**
|
|||
|
|
He does not seek **truth**—he seeks **control over perception.**
|
|||
|
|
He does not seek **engagement**—he seeks **submission.**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
By understanding these tactics, **we neutralize their effectiveness,** ensuring that those who weaponize **social dominance and intellectual superiority** no longer dictate the terms of reality.
|