11 KiB
Executable file
The Envious Machine: A Case Study in Narcissistic Rivalry and Malicious Envy in Digital Discourse
Preprint – Revised June 9, 2025 Resubmission to Personality and Social Psychology Review
Abstract
Envy is a central driver of narcissistic rivalry, shaping interpersonal dynamics through antagonism and reputation regulation. This exploratory case study conducts a forensic psychological analysis of envy-related behaviors in a public digital interaction dataset between Joel Johnson and Mark Havens (Neutralizing Narcissism: The Immutable Edition, 2025). Through thematic and forensic linguistic analysis, we examine rhetorical hostility, narrative distortion, and performative identity shifts, mapping these behaviors onto integrated psychological frameworks: narcissistic admiration-rivalry (Back et al., 2013), vulnerable–grandiose narcissism (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010), malicious envy (Lange & Crusius, 2015), and Freud’s “narcissism of small differences” (1917). Findings suggest a pattern of envy-driven sabotage consistent with narcissistic rivalry in digital spaces. The case contributes to theory-building around digital narcissism and provides implications for AI moderation, psychological profiling, and online conflict resolution.
1. Introduction
Envy, defined as distress toward another’s superior status or advantage (Parrott & Smith, 1993), has long been recognized as a key factor in narcissistic antagonism (Krizan & Johar, 2012). Narcissistic individuals often experience envy as an ego-threatening emotion, prompting attempts to diminish others to restore self-esteem (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). In digital contexts—where status, identity, and rhetoric coalesce—envy becomes both observable and narratively performative.
This study investigates how envy manifests in the digital rhetoric of a real-world dispute archived on the blockchain between Joel Johnson and Mark Havens. Through triangulation across psychological theory, discourse analysis, and forensic linguistics, we aim to illuminate the tactics of envy-based manipulation and rivalry in digital environments.
1.1 Research Questions
- What rhetorical and discursive behaviors within the dataset suggest envy as a central psychological driver?
- How do these behaviors map onto contemporary psychological models of narcissism and envy?
- What implications do these findings hold for detecting narcissistic rivalry and envy-driven manipulation in digital contexts?
1.2 Significance
This theory-building case study expands the application of envy and narcissism theory into real-world online discourse. By bridging forensic psychology, digital behavior analysis, and AI-relevant frameworks, it offers a foundation for future research in automated detection, narrative diagnostics, and forensic profiling of toxic digital interactions.
2. Theoretical Frameworks
To analyze the behavioral dynamics of this case, we integrate four interrelated frameworks:
| Framework | Core Concept | Relevance to Digital Envy |
|---|---|---|
| NARC (Back et al., 2013) | Narcissistic rivalry vs. admiration | Rivalry triggers hostile discourse |
| Vulnerable–Grandiose Narcissism (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010) | Oscillation between hypersensitivity and grandiosity | Provides structure for behavioral shifts |
| Malicious vs. Benign Envy (Lange & Crusius, 2015) | Malicious envy drives sabotage | Explains motives of degradation |
| Narcissism of Small Differences (Freud, 1917) | Conflict magnified by proximity | Clarifies peer-based envy dynamics |
These frameworks were synthesized into an applied model of “envy-driven narcissistic sabotage” (EDNS), which we use to structure our qualitative analysis.
3. Methodology
3.1 Dataset
The primary dataset is a public online discourse thread between Joel Johnson and Mark Havens, spanning January 16 – February 22, 2025. The dataset was archived in Neutralizing Narcissism: The Immutable Edition and permanently notarized on the blockchain (Tx: OzRuPCy1FS5IPny_p1UZjYuMjHHzkKM). It includes 90 pages of unedited interactions, responses, and commentary.
3.2 Analytical Method
We employed a mixed-methods forensic psychological approach, including:
-
Qualitative Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006): Using a grounded coding schema derived from envy and narcissism literature, we identified and categorized envy-driven behaviors across five primary themes:
- Frame Control
- Projection
- Theatrical Deflection
- Narrative Rewriting
- Performative Exit
-
Forensic Linguistic Analysis (Coulthard & Johnson, 2010): Analyzed lexical choices, metaphor, tone, and discursive structure to detect aggression, avoidance, and manipulation.
-
Analyst Team & Reliability: The analysis was conducted collaboratively by two analysts using independent coding followed by consensus reconciliation. Inter-coder agreement (Cohen’s κ) was 0.87, indicating high reliability.
-
Appendix: A supplemental file includes behavioral excerpts mapped to coded categories and theoretical dimensions (see Supplement A).
3.3 Ethics Statement
This study analyzes publicly accessible data in the public interest under principles of digital ethnography and forensic behavioral science. While Joel Johnson is named, all secondary individuals are anonymized to prevent incidental harm. Our focus is strictly on patterns of behavior, not psychiatric diagnosis. We align our approach with APA Ethics Code Standard 8.04 and precedents in forensic personality profiling (Schlesinger, 2009).
3.4 Analyst Disclosure & Reflexivity
The second participant in the dataset (Havens) is also the lead analyst. To mitigate reflexive bias, all interpretations were reviewed by an independent analyst unaffiliated with the conflict. Disagreements were resolved via evidence-based consensus, and reflexive memos were maintained throughout coding.
4. Empirical Findings
4.1 Discursive Aggression and Rhetorical Undermining
Johnson’s discourse is marked by envy-coded rhetorical aggression. For instance:
“You might be looking into the clouds of ambiguity, seeing a teddy bear here and a dragon there…” (2/11/25, p. 8)
This metaphor ridicules Havens’ cognitive process and performs subtle devaluation, consistent with malicious envy and narcissistic rivalry (Back et al., 2013).
He later reframes Havens as inherently hostile:
“You are unnecessarily aggressive, nasty, and assume bad faith from the start.” (2/12/25, p. 18)
Such language deflects scrutiny, avoids substantive engagement, and preserves self-superiority.
4.2 Envy-Specific Behavioral Tactics
| Tactic | Definition | Example | Framework Alignment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frame Control | Establishing moral/intellectual authority | “A Friendly Scolding” (2/11/25, p. 8) | NARC Rivalry, Malicious Envy |
| Projection & Reframing | Attributing personal flaws to the other | “Your assumptions put blinders on your empathy” (p. 8) | Vulnerable Narcissism, Freud (1917) |
| Theatrical Deflection | Humor/metaphor to avoid accountability | “Forsooth! I was never losing, only performing!” (p. 23) | Grandiose Narcissism |
| Narrative Rewriting | Recoding self as victim, other as aggressor | “I am the ‘victim’—not the one slandering people” (p. 82) | Vulnerable Narcissism, Malicious Envy |
| Performative Exit | Ending on a note of performative grace | “The pleasure was mine. A well-played scene.” (p. 23) | Envy-Based Face-Saving |
4.3 Oscillation Between Grandiose and Vulnerable Modes
Johnson alternates between:
-
Grandiose assertion:
“Your profile of me is profoundly wrong.” (2/12/25, p. 12)
-
Vulnerable posturing:
“I spoke with Dallas Police today.” (2/21/25, p. 82)
This oscillation reflects dynamic self-regulation in the face of narcissistic injury, in line with Morf & Rhodewalt (2001).
5. Discussion
5.1 Implications for Narcissism and Envy Theory
This case extends the NARC model by illustrating how rivalry is expressed through digitally mediated performative sabotage. The fluid shift between vulnerable and grandiose postures reflects real-time envy regulation. Freud’s “narcissism of small differences” remains prescient in explaining conflict intensification between near-equals in digital status hierarchies.
5.2 Applications for AI and Digital Governance
-
AI Moderation Models: Language models trained to detect envy-based rhetorical tactics could improve moderation of antagonistic digital speech.
-
Forensic Behavioral Profiling: Envy-driven patterns—such as narrative inversion or status sabotage—can inform digital threat assessments and restorative dialogue interventions.
-
Narrative Diagnostics: Recursive self/other framing structures can be formalized into computational typologies for evaluating intent and manipulation in dialogue.
6. Limitations
This is a single-case, theory-building study, not a generalizable sample. The lack of clinical interviews limits psychological inference to behavioral proxies. Additionally, emotional valence is inferred through text, which—while rich—cannot fully capture internal states.
7. Conclusion
The case of Joel Johnson illustrates envy as a structural driver of rhetorical hostility and discursive manipulation in digital environments. Through a novel synthesis of envy, narcissism, and linguistic theory, we show how rivalry manifests in real-time social competition. Future research should expand this model across diverse subjects and platforms, integrating neurocognitive measures and automated detection systems to better understand and mitigate envy-driven digital toxicity.
Future Directions
- Typology Development: Establish a “Digital Rivalry Index” categorizing common envy-driven tactics.
- AI Integration: Train LLMs to recognize envy-laden dialogue patterns for early moderation intervention.
- Neurosocial Correlates: Combine neuroimaging with digital ethnography (Takahashi et al., 2009) to trace envy responses in real-time discourse.
References
(Revised and expanded to include new sources as suggested) [List remains as in original submission, with these added:]
- Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2007). The narcissistic self: Background, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies. The Self, 115–138.
- Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. Atria.
Supplement A: Thematic Codebook and Coded Quotes Table
(Available in supplementary materials per submission guidelines)