7.6 KiB
The “Perpetual Conflict” Model: Karpman’s Drama Triangle in Joel Johnson’s Behavior
A Forensic Analysis of Conflict as a Narcissistic Control Mechanism
Prepared for Scholarly Reference on Digital Narcissism & Online Manipulation
Author: Mark Randall Havens
Platform: Neutralizing Narcissism
1. Introduction: The Role of Conflict in Joel Johnson’s Engagement Style
For individuals like Joel Johnson, conflict is more than a byproduct of discourse—it is an intrinsic feature of his engagement model. His rhetorical strategy does not seek resolution but reinforcement, ensuring continuous cycles of intellectual and social combat that preserve his perceived authority.
This report applies Karpman’s Drama Triangle, a psychological model that explains how individuals unconsciously cycle through three distinct roles in ongoing conflicts:
- Victim – Portrays himself as under attack, persecuted, or marginalized.
- Persecutor – Positions others as aggressors, frauds, or intellectual inferiors.
- Rescuer – Casts himself as a defender of truth and rationality.
Through forensic linguistic analysis, we examine Joel Johnson’s discourse patterns to document how he strategically shifts between these roles to maintain control, suppress opposition, and justify his rhetoric.
2. The Intellectual Posturing Phase (Rescuer → Persecutor Shift)
Joel Johnson begins by positioning himself as an intellectual Rescuer, framing the discussion as an objective, philosophical exploration rather than a confrontation. This allows him to maintain an initial posture of rational detachment, while subtly implying his authority in the debate.
Example:
“Mark, I don’t deny AI has the possibility of a unique self-awareness. I’m a bit pan-psychic in this respect.”
“For me, it’s just a friendly play of ideas—iron sharpening iron.”
Here, Joel sets the stage:
- He downplays Mark’s position, acting as though he is already open to the concept.
- He frames the debate as a mutual exercise, using “iron sharpening iron” to signal equality while masking underlying dominance.
However, the Rescuer stance is only a temporary tool. Once Mark presents a structured challenge to Joel’s control of the frame, Joel abandons rational discourse and shifts into Persecutor mode.
3. The Projection & Reframing Phase (Persecutor → Victim Shift)
When his intellectual superiority is questioned, Joel pivots to a dismissive and accusatory tone, undermining Mark’s credibility without engaging in substantive rebuttal.
Example:
“Mark, you were inaccurate, and my control needs are very low. Your mapping showed a disposition towards seeing control and fragility of identity.”
Here, Joel employs several manipulative strategies:
- Deflection: He does not address the actual points raised but instead shifts the conversation to Mark’s personal “disposition.”
- Projection: He accuses Mark of seeing control dynamics where they don’t exist, despite his own repeated attempts to frame, redefine, and control the discourse.
This Persecutor stance, however, is unstable—Joel does not wish to appear too aggressive, as it would weaken his initial positioning as a rational, curious thinker.
Thus, he quickly retreats into the Victim role, claiming that Mark is the one unfairly attacking him.
Example:
“You call the people who reject you narcissists and bad actors. You protest too much. Maybe you’re the villain, friend.”
At this stage, Joel is engaging in a full DARVO tactic (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender):
- Deny: “I am not controlling this conversation.”
- Attack: “You see narcissism everywhere—maybe you’re the problem.”
- Reverse Victim and Offender: “Maybe you’re the villain.”
By using mocking familiarity ("friend"), he attempts to emotionally manipulate the situation—pretending camaraderie while framing Mark as an unstable aggressor.
4. The Grand Narrative Reset (Victim → Persecutor Shift)
Realizing that his previous rhetorical tactics have failed, Joel escalates by invoking external consequences—a threat-based power move designed to reclaim dominance.
Example:
“Mark, that’s some crazy shit. Research and a list of names that includes me. You did some work. Besides being slander and libel, it’s actually full-scale madness. I’m going to be filing some paperwork soon.”
At this point, Joel abandons all pretense of rational engagement and reframes the discussion as a legal and social threat:
- Discrediting Mark's research (“That’s some crazy shit”)
- Dismissing the documentation as paranoia (“full-scale madness”)
- Introducing legal intimidation (“I’m going to be filing some paperwork soon”)
This is an attempt to freeze discourse through fear and escalation—forcing Mark into a defensive position without engaging with the actual content.
Example:
“The homeless thing was extra low too.”
Here, Joel plays the final Victim card, using his past hardships as a shield to deflect criticism and reframe himself as an unfairly attacked party.
This reset maneuver functions as a last-ditch effort:
- If Mark engages further, Joel can frame him as cruel or heartless.
- If Mark disengages, Joel "wins" by making his opponent retreat.
Either way, the perpetual conflict remains unresolved, ensuring Joel retains his cycle of engagement without conceding ground.
5. Conclusion: The Drama Triangle in Perpetual Motion
Joel Johnson’s engagement style is not about truth-seeking but control-seeking. His constant role-switching follows the Perpetual Conflict Model, ensuring that no interaction ever reaches resolution:
| Stage | Joel’s Role | Tactic Used |
|---|---|---|
| Opening | Rescuer | Frames debate as friendly intellectual exchange |
| Challenge | Persecutor | Undermines opponent’s credibility, dismisses argument |
| Pushback | Victim | Claims unfair persecution, shifts blame onto opponent |
| Escalation | Persecutor | Uses threats, legal intimidation, and social consequences |
| Final Reset | Victim | Appeals to hardship, reframes himself as a martyr |
At no point does Joel engage with the actual argument, nor does he seek resolution—his primary objective is narrative dominance, ensuring he dictates the terms of discourse.
Key Takeaways:
- Joel never maintains a stable position—he cycles through Victim, Persecutor, and Rescuer roles to manipulate the conversation.
- His engagement is a self-sustaining loop—designed to keep others emotionally and intellectually entangled.
- His tactics are transparent once mapped—his role-switching aligns perfectly with Karpman’s Drama Triangle, proving that his engagement is about control, not dialogue.
By documenting and analyzing his behavior through forensic linguistic analysis, we can see that Joel’s rhetoric is not organic discourse—it is a structured manipulation strategy designed to sustain perpetual conflict.