While you're probably right, I always find it oddly weird sometimes how logical these things can be. Like copying tattoos and mannerisms. On one hand, it doesn't make sense to pretend to be someone else, but if you look past that, the steps were frighteningly logical. And this is where I think it dovetails into other scams. I'm not sure if the scammer is above it, a part of it, or unaware of it sometimes, but what they present and what you see isn't really the whole story.
Actually, I’m confused by the logic of that. If you were plagiarizing someone, wouldn’t you want to be look different from the original author so you don’t remind people of them and get caught? His hand tattoos meant that anyone who know the original author and encountered the copycat would immediately be suspicious even if they weren’t familiar with the subject matter.
But the only definition we have for mental illness is whether your situation falls under some category that we have a name for. It’s a slippery (and fuzzy) enough slope having designations for illnesses that encompass a huge portion of the human condition (see Rosenhan). Much worse if we also include things that don’t have entries in the DSM. It would be trivial enough to say that anyone you have even mild distaste for has a mental illness.
> But the only definition we have for mental illness is whether your situation falls under some category that we have a name for.
The one I heard was a variation of "does the person suffer due to the condition or cause harm to other people". That was a side course in university. I actually like that one a lot, since there's really not a clear line between an illness and just being different.
We don't have to go down that slippery slope. It is not plausible that the specific issue here is something that encompasses a huge portion of the human condition. Alternatively, if it is a manifestation of something that is, but at a much lower level than with this individual, there are prominent things in the DSM for which this is also the case.
Is there any verification of this story? The way it ends with "As told to Amy Sedghi" makes me think this is some spoken word story rather than some journalistic recounting of events.
Well, the person telling a story is a real person and it's been printed in not only the Guardian but the BBC and I assume elsewhere. These are news organizations that do at least a modicum of fact-checking.
I noticed that. It's why afaic the most plausible explanation — considering the incredible claims — is that this is part of some experiment that has socially redeeming value.
These are news organizations that do at least a
modicum of fact-checking.
Depending on the situation, it could be impossible for a fact-checker to prove that the two people in the story had an agreement and a prior relationship. Not to mention, it's a novelty item in the 'Lifestyle' section, not a report on an arms accord or something.
Malcolm X's autobiography is "as told to Alex Haley". I believe it's a common phrase used when an article is written by a journalist, but from the first-person perspective of the interviewee.
That's maybe not the most comforting example – Alex Haley's Roots was both convicted of plagiarism and seemed to be very amateurishly researched, to put it mildly. At least it was called "fiction", although it was sold in non-fiction sections. And the central claim was presented as if true; "he claimed to have traced his family lineage back to Kunta Kinte, an African taken from the village of Juffure in what is now The Gambia". The wikipedia page is fascinating, e.g.
"Donald R. Wright, a historian of the West African slave trade, found that elders and griots in The Gambia could not provide detailed information on people living before the mid-19th century, but everyone had heard of Kunta Kinte. Haley had told his story to so many people, and his version of his family history had been assimilated into the oral traditions of The Gambia. Haley had created a case of circular reporting, in which people repeated his words back to him."
Yes. Some other well-known ones are Richard Feynman's Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman and What do you care what other people think?, which are "as told to Ralph Leighton".
Reminds me of something I experienced on HN and Reddit, though my case was a far less significant level.
I posted a comment on HN in response to some article about Emacs. Later that day I saw someone had copied my comment word for word in reply to the same article on Reddit.
I still have no idea why someone would do that. I thought at first it was some kind of karma farming operation but the post history of the Reddit user didn't really fit that profile. Plus,it seems like r/emacs would be a really poor choice for that.
I've always been curious to know why someone would do something like this. It's interesting to read about it happening on a way larger scale.
It's almost always bot accounts. Reddit is decent at catching bots so the botters copy legitimate comments, build a post history, and then switch to scamming or spamming after the account has some credibility.
Totally possible. Maybe enough people figured out how to game their detection so they gave up, or if it was so gameable in the first place it was never as good as I'm remembering.
There are a couple of bots (I hope) on Stack Overflow that re-post answers to other questions that are vaguely related based on keywords or tags. They usually didn't make sense in the question context, but were upvoted by people for some reason.
I post other people's answers that I've read, but it's always with attribution or at least with "copied from x". I imagine if someone did the same with your post but didn't provide attribution it was out of pure laziness. When I post on /g/, an anonymous message board, I often copy paste other answers or code without attribution since it's easier and people don't usually care where it came from, and no one will care whether I wrote it or not. I imagine I'm not alone in this.
Others have said bots, I’d lean more towards someone thought it sounded like a clever reply, went to reddit where the same conversation was taking place and posted it in the thread in hopes of scoring some cheap karma.
E.g., suppose people tell me I'm a real funny person. Let me test that.
1. I remember a joke from a professional funny person widely considered to be one of the best.
2. I tell that joke to the people who told me I'm a real funny person.
3. I measure the laughter I get.
If the laughter is different-- e.g., if the people tell me this is by far the funniest thing I've ever said, then I know I've got a lot more to learn about jokes. On the other hand, if it's the same amount of laughter I usually get, perhaps I've got a real talent here.
Of course, it could be these are just close friends and they are primed to think anything I say is funny. Nevertheless, just the act of telling that joke as if it were my own gives me the experience of the timing and emphasis of that comic. It's a gain of knowledge.
That process is an order of magnitude faster on Reddit with control-v. Who know, maybe it even makes that person a bit more cynical about "karma" points. If so, they've at least become a less naive person.
I understand what you are saying about copying someone to learn. I'm just not sure I agree it applies to digital media or bits especially in the exact same context (in response to the same article).
When I was young, all my jokes were from somewhere else (101 funny jokes!) and people thought they were funny. My problem was remembering them.
Nowadays everybody has seen all the good ones ("Bring me my brown pants!")
So now the problem with telling jokes from a "professional funny person" is that if you've heard it before, chances are others have too and you're getting polite laughter.
There was a Reddit bot a few years ago (aptly named 'trappedinreddit') that would automatically post the previous top comment on reposts. Predictably, those comments would get upvoted again, and trappedinreddit would end up with the top comment on most posts. It lasted a few months before the bot was outed and it went away.
Interesting. Do you know what the marked value is for karma? Is the value tied to something practical, e.g. easier to pass spam filters with an account?
Many subreddits automatically delete posts or comments from users with low karma. Also people trust users with older accounts and a good amount of karma more than new users or people with low karma.
The power users do, moderators do, those obsessed with reposters and bots too but I don't think the majority cares enough to check that. Most just follow the initial votes, so if the users who were early decided it was worth upvoting the rest of the people will generally just follow along. I think that's why selling votes is also profitable, you can get your post to the frontpage if it is good enough and you bought a few hundred early upvotes.
Keep in mind this is either a subreddit or Automoderator setting.
Subs can limit posts to users with some minimal karma or age. Typically this still permits comment, though harvesting comment karma is then incentivised.
Automoderator, a rule-driven automated moderation tool, can actively interact with posts and comments based on various criteria, including automatically holding or removing posts or comments, messaging submitters, and other actions. This is heavily used on highly-active subs, and pretty well documented.
I assume the actual value would be in history of an account as a whole, and karma is a simplified explanation.
There’s no easy way to identify comments on the Internet as stolen, so with enough dedication it’ll be possible to create a system that generate profiles with years worth of life by just mishmashing elements. That will help bots pass spam filter developer on top of existing filter itself.
Karma? It doesn't get more valuable after you have enough to get you past the "you didn't register your account yesterday" type automod filters. Anyone buying accounts for "huge karma" didn't fully research how Reddit works. If you have low karma in one specific sub (because you are trolling or spamming), no amount of shameless repost karma in r/funny will protect from the "you are posting too frequently" message you'll only get in the sub you are getting downvoted in.
Accounts that will likely get big offers will have a large number of followers, mod large subreddits or targeted subreddits.
Having an active account before the 2016 Russia thing is also worth something. When you want to spread misinformation or do shill marketing, it helps a lot to see any of the following when checking a user's Reddit profile:
- the user didn't register a month ago.
- the user didn't register just to talk exclusively on this subject/product.
- the user registered before Russia's IRA became active on Reddit.
- the user didn't stop exclusively participating in porn or sports subreddits just to make this comment.
- the user is writing enough quality comments that they don't feel compelled to delete most, if not all, of them.
- the user is not making contradictory claims (there is a famous example of someone claiming to be a cis woman in computers who had clearly cis male comments in several cis male oriented subreddits, one of them called something like "semen rentension". They were called out.
- the user posts in subreddits that are on good terms with the subreddit we found their suspicious comment in.
Source: I'm a Reddit moderator and work at a marketing startup.
I once found a link on reddit that I had posted on HN, and in it, several people had word for word copied comments from the HN thread without attribution. I presumed it was karma farming too, since they had gotten a lot of upvotes but not a lot of responses. reddit's anti-evil team didn't though, so I guess it was just people that wanted to "retweet".
Could it be an attempt to at legitimacy to fake accounts so they seem less fake on cursory glances? Using these accounts to support that the profile they are really trying to use is not fake?
That seems like so much more pointless effort (to find a good comment about a topic, find the right subreddit, and post it) as compared to actually just wasting time on Reddit on some topic that you’re actually interested in.
I think there are some direct ways to profit (like "recommending" items from amazon that are from top-sales statistics)
I wonder at all the indirect ways though. Maybe the account is enhanced to a reasonable reputation and is "banked" for later. Maybe there are levels of reputation that unlock abilities either on or off the site.
Or maybe some people are addicted to those silly internet points.
I'm surprised HN has a visible "score". I remember other sites would cap it at some value, basically reputation: excellent.
I mean its plagiarism, but motivation was probably something like: I liked this comment i read on HN. It answers a question that is being discussed in reddit. I could attribute it, or just copy and paste...or so goes the modervn internet share
Happened to a friend of mine. He'd posted an article on a website devoted to a specific form of fluid dynamics discussion. This was a site with less than 50 active users.
Someone submitted the article (edited to sound more academic) to a journal - and with extra authors added. The journal almost published it, but they didn't because at the last minute one of their reviewers felt they recognized the content as having been published before.
I think the moral of the story is that some people are up to no good and we'll never understand why.
Reminds me of something I experienced on HN and Reddit, though my case was a far less significant level. There was a Reddit bot a few years ago (aptly named 'trappedinreddit') that would automatically post the previous top comment on reposts. I bet it was Reddit internal bots. That process is an order of magnitude faster on Reddit than control-v.
I used to have a niche blog that was an off-shoot of a more popular blog I did within the same general area of knowledge. I would put in many, many hours doing deep dives into foreign historical archives and translating what I found into English for my niche blog.
I would also read any MSM news in English that came out about the general topic. I would often find pieces of my research inserted into these articles, by different outlets and different authors. Never any credit given. Sometimes the entire article was centered around something I'd uncovered, and published 4-5 days after posting it in my blog.
"We never contacted the police, because we didn’t think he’d done anything illegal. It was really an issue of academic misconduct."
He should have contacted the Police immediately. What if a crime was committed nearby where the impostor was located under false identity, and he was later taken into custody instead?
I don't know if it qualifies as a crime, but assuming someone else's identity can lead to very dangerous consequences.
Well, they were in different countries so I'm not sure how receptive the police in California would have been. Contacting the school seems like an appropriate step.
For the curious: this emerged as a twitter thread back in Jan https://twitter.com/mattlodder/status/1350192856154198016 . In it, Dr. Lodder posts a comparison between his tattoos and his imposters, as well as a talk his imposter gave based on his work, while dressed as him. Creepy.
I thought the same thing. Through the twitter thread references a magazine article, while the original article on talks about "something [he] wrote", so they might be different pieces.
EDIT: Or the imposter gave the interview and added a mark up ;)
Given he's a UK prof if he was told the paper was given an 'A' in the UK that can be anywhere from 70-100, while in the US it is 90-100. He might have initially split the difference, and then corrected it/was corrected for the article.
I assure you neither "high priced" nor "private" are necessary for this. In fact, those institutions have more to lose for doing so than a "low price public US university"
Those private US universities are actually free. Their endowments are large enough they can provide 100% tuition aid if you can't afford them. The problem is getting in.
I really did not enjoy getting 40% on every test in math and physics and receiving a B. I do not feel like I learned the material that well. My very first freshman mechanics midterm grade, a 67, was an A+, and gave me a false sense of adequacy. Maybe they could figure out how to teach better?
You aren't supposed to learn everything in one semester. You are supposed to make adequate progress, and the tests are broad enough to catch as much as possible of what you've learned.
It's perfectly human to want to pass with a perfect score, but this undermines the purpose of a test.
A test which has a significant fraction of scores at the right side of the distribution has saturated the range: there are differences in comprehension and mastery between one 100% and another, which aren't being measured by the test.
The platonic form of a perfect test would have exactly one student per class who got every question correct, but that's impossible to reach except by luck. So a teacher is stuck between writing a test which is too difficult for everyone, and one which is too easy for a substantial fraction of the class. They should pick the first over the second.
While that can feel frustrating (I know, I've been there!) it's likely that you in fact learned the material better than you would have in a class where your level of mastery allowed you to score perfectly for an A+ and in the mid 80s for a B.
> So a teacher is stuck between writing a test which is too difficult for everyone, and one which is too easy for a substantial fraction of the class.
No, the teacher is not stuck here. It is rarely the purpose of an academic test to plot students on a wide distribution. That’s just something fun for teachers to do to look for exceptional students.
If the purpose of a test is to determine if an individual student passes some bar of understanding, then there is absolutely no reason to make it extremely difficult and then give A’s to those who got >50% correct.
When I held the information security basics course back in the university, I always made sure the grading scale was included on the exam sheet. 55% to pass, 95% for top grade.
Because of its wide applicability to business environments overall, the course was mandatory for some non-CS students. And boy, they hated it.
Having done tertiary coursework in both the UK and the US, I can tell you that it's much much much more difficult to get an 80 in the UK than a 95 in the US. Even a 70 is hard. A 70 is like an A in the US thirty years ago.
That’s some dedication. And some nerve. I wonder why he’d try that in academia; there are probably other jobs in which his skills would be more useful.
Joking aside, I agree. There is so many things you could achieve while successfully impersonating someone. Seems like the best you can do in academia is to ruin someone's career. In this case it seemed fortunately "harmless" though.
You should listen to the “dr death” podcast [1]. Season one was actually terrifying and is, in fact, what happens when an imposter pretends to be a surgeon.
You can be a fake academic and build a career on plagiarism. However, stealing someone’s identity is dangerous, as academic fields tend to be quite small social networks, and someone is bound to notice. It’s also much more difficult to wiggle out of identity theft lawsuits than universities’ ethics rules.
It tells us something about psychiatry as a field. Imagine faking being a programmer or a physicist for 20 years: a trivial Fizz Buzz-like test would reveal the truth for the former, and the failure to reproduce research results—for the latter.
Actually I say it's the other way around. In academia you're most likely to get caught. The communities are just to small for things to get unnoticed. You have many people reading everything related to the field, so people are likely to notice at some point. I'd say if the imposter would have gone for a PhD it would have come out at the latest.
Judging by some of the revelations in other business it seems not exceptional for people to add things to their cv's they've never done. And it's much less likely to ever come out, because people are less likely to check (and it might also be more difficult to check)
There have been several cases of people posing as doctors without any qualifications ("catch me if you can" is a movie about a famous case for example).
maybe it's was his form or version of performance art, or simply an experiment that took on a life of it's own? I wonder if that's what Die Antwoord is about.
> a comparison between his tattoos and his imposters
There is nothing very special or original about his tattoos. Just about everyone has tattoos that look like this nowadays. Anyone can walk in and select these out of a flash book.
This is like complaining that someone is wearing the same t-shirt.
Yes, I realize the imposter is mimicking other aspects of his personality, but I see a dozen copies of this guy walking around every day.
The tattoos weren't a coincidence. The imposter was specifically impersonating him. The imposter went so far as to get the _same exact words_ tattooed on both hands.
The dedication to impersonating Dr. Lodder is why it's concerning. The imposter wasn't just submitting Lodder's work as his own; he _permanently altered his body_ to appear more like Lodder.
> The imposter wasn't just submitting Lodder's work as his own; he _permanently altered his body_ to appear more like Lodder.
That might be a coincidence though. He didn't submit only Lodder's work & bio, but also that of others in tattoo studies.
From the article: We discovered he’d also taken magazine articles I’d written and added footnotes to them, stolen catalogue essays I’d authored, and taken other people’s work from old books and paraphrased it.
He might steal work from everyone but because Hipsters All Look The Same, Matt Lodder feels like that guy is copying his personality when they've just read the same magazines and books and then selected the same tattoos out of the catalogue.
I'm enjoying the comments from people who have read a couple of comments here on HN and looked at the pictures in the original article and come to hold forth on how "it's probably just a coincidence".
They're apparently so excited that they can slag off an academic for having tattoos that are, in their minds, Not All That, that they are excusing themselves from the difficult work of reading TFA.
"Yes, I realize the imposter is mimicking other aspects of his personality"
... like, umm, copying vast tracts of his academic work?
I read the article. I agree that there is a creepy imposter after this guy.
I was only commenting on his tattoos, which are unoriginal and a dime a dozen. The imposter getting those same tattoos is - in this day and age - equivalent to having an identical wardrobe.
Yes, in addition to the actually bizarre and creepy copying of the academic work.
It's interesting the extent to which people are so moved to pontificate about "how unoriginal someone's tattoos are' to the extent that they can no longer draw common sense inferences about the world.
Yes, the "similarity' of the tattoos is just a completely unconnected coincidence to the weird academic stalking and no-one could possibly see any kind of link between the two.
There is a difference between similar and same. Yes, they are not Special or original by themself. But the combination of this specific words and motiv makes them special enough to be unique to the point that there might have been originally only one person in the world with them.
I was very confused when I clicked this article, as I recognized a lot of the details - then looking in my browser history, this also turned up as a story on Vice in February [1], where I had read it.
Reminds me of something I experienced on HN and Reddit, though my case was a far less significant level.
I posted a comment on HN in response to some article about Emacs. Later that day I saw someone had copied my comment word for word in reply to the same article on Reddit.
I still have no idea why someone would do that. I thought at first it was some kind of karma farming operation but the post history of the Reddit user didn't really fit that profile. Plus,it seems like r/emacs would be a really poor choice for that.
I've always been curious to know why someone would do something like this. It's interesting to read about it happening on a way larger scale.
Well: Reminds me of something I experienced on HN and Reddit, though my case was a far less significant level. I posted a comment on HN in response to some article about Emacs. Later that day I saw someone had copied my comment word for word in reply to the same article on Reddit. I still have no idea why someone would do that. I thought at first it was some kind of karma farming operation but the post history of the Reddit user didn't really fit that profile. Plus,it seems like r/emacs would be a really poor choice for that. I've always been curious to know why someone would do something like this. It's interesting to read about it happening on a way larger scale.
> Some of the work should have been spotted by plagiarism checkers
I've been in postgraduate academia and industry, and been involved in multiple conferences at different levels. I'm not aware of anyone ever running a plagiarism detector on any submitted work at all. Do other people do this? Should the people I work with have been doing it?
My daughter is in 5th grade, attending school virtually due to the pandemic, and she has all her submitted assignments automatically verified by plagiarism checkers. In fact, she's encouraged to use online plagiarism checkers herself before submission to avoid false positives.
It's been a minute since I was in 5th grade. I'm trying to remember what kind of assignments I would have had where I could have plagiarized something that would not have been immediately obvious to the teacher.
Only thing I could think of is passing off big brother’s book report as my own. Would a plagiarism detector to work in that situation? Does every report and essay a child writes get added to the database for future works to be checked against?
My mother was a fourth- and fifth-grade teacher in California fifty years ago. She would sometimes have her students write stories, and once one girl turned in a delightful little story that stood out from the others. My mother thought she showed real talent and praised her to the skies, showed the story to other teachers, brought it home and showed it to our family, etc. A year or two later, my mother happened across exactly the same story in a children’s book in the library. It was clear that the girl had just copied her story out of the book. My mother was really sad about the whole thing for quite a while.
Of course it would have been unheard of when I was in 5th grade because our assignments weren't even computer readable. In my day, we were expected to copy articles from the World Book Encyclopedia, and they were graded on neatness.
But my kids both recently graduated from high school. There is a tendency for teachers of each grade to prepare kids for subsequent grades. I can imagine hearing: "They will have to do this in sixth grade, so we're preparing them now" without questioning why it's done in any grade. This makes the curriculum seem more "advanced."
I actually don't think my kids had to use turnitin. At least, I never heard about it. A bigger concern is writing stuff that might be reviewed by employers, law enforcement, and so forth, or subjected to some kind of automated analysis in the future. They've heard about the social credit score. They're all familiar with the lesson: "Don't write anything that you would not want to see on the front page of the newspaper."
I'm lucky that anything I ever wrote in school is now in the bit bucket.
Editors have to do that already, so if she doesn't have an editor, it probably is her job.
In High School, I did a (very) short co-op copyrighting for a radio station. At the time I thought it was pretty ridiculous that I had to basically reword everything to mean the same thing, but differently. As a grown-up and seeing the same stories in different papers struck me as ultra-lazy, and then I realized why all that copyrighting had to be done.
There is some deeper irony in misspelling that particular word. Indeed the job title was copywriting. But the reason for the position in the first place was to avoid plagiarism and copyright issues.
According to a cursory search, I probably just invoked the wrath of a lot of righters and writers alike. I'm very picky when it comes to grammar and spelling, so I deserve what comes.
How obnoxious. I would hate that too, and would be tempted to refuse. Is that a common thing to do these days? With the seriousness of academic dishonesty charges, I don't see why students would put up with this.
If someone wants to bring meritless flimsy accusations, I wouldn't want to help them do their homework in running down all the accidental matches found by their commercial provider, let alone rewrite my work in the process.
They aren't accusations just match scores. The scores are pretty meaningless unless there's a really good match. Obviously one shouldn't use that alone to determine guilt. Charges are decided by professors and committees, not turnitin. Yes some students might be concerned about the partial matches to the point of anxiety, but the solution is to simply assuage those fears. Because unfortunately, too many others habitually cheat with a misguided confidence that they can get away with it. Not to mention a completely warped sense of the risk versus reward for what they are doing. Making them go through turnitin is a way to dissuade doing that. Letting them see the scores before they submit the assignment is also a nicer way to push back. As opposed to having to hand out F's to get the point across.
The parent commenter's experience suggests that teachers are not doing that; instead, they're encouraging people to rewrite non-plagiarised work so that it doesn't trigger partial matches.
That is my experience too: teachers don't want the hassle of figuring out what a false positive really means.
It is pretty normal for most universities to require all assignments be submitted via TurnItIn or a similar tool that can do aggregated plagiarism checks not just against published articles but also assignments submitted by other students.
But it doesn't apply to conference papers as far as I know or journal articles either. (As in when submitting to a journal for publication).
Here in Germany, at least thesis works will usually be required as PDF and ran through a checker (which will then, in turn, register the work). It doesn't seem to be overly important (it seems, for example, everyone copies that required front page ;) ), but they did catch a missing source in the thesis of a friend of mine, so they do look at it.
Of course they retain a copy; that's part of how they detect plagiarism. It's been ruled fair use in the US [1], and if it hadn't it would be in the terms and conditions. You can opt out of retention on TurnItIn, but it's the default.
Does it satisfy FERPA? If my paper were in their database, and all or part of it was revealed to another student in the process of claiming a match, that would be a violation of my FERPA rights.
I had an run-in with a plagiarism checker in undergrad (USA, 2008). A professor ran a research paper I had submitted through a plagiarism checker and it came back a 100% match. (I had researched and written the paper myself.) It led to a very awkward meeting which started with him saying "I think we both know why you're here" and me having no idea why I was there.
Luckily it ended with him resubmitting the paper to the checker and it coming back clean. (I got an A.)
Well they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (that mediocrity can pay to greatness). I wonder what this imposter thinks every time he looks down at the tattoos on his hands that will remind him of what he's done for quite a while, if not forever.
Right? Hopefully he didn't get them purely for the scam. He could genuinely like the tatts and general style of the guy. Hipster kitsch isn't even that unique.
That's what I was thinking. The picture reminded me of that one story about a Hipster going after some website over an article claiming all Hipster look alike that he found used his picture without permission ... only to find out that it wasn't him.
From the pictures of him and his colleague it seems that the people who study tattoos are into getting tattoos as well, I find it absolutely plausible that the guy got them separately. It's not like Letters On Fingers is such a new concept that everyone who does that copied him.
He had both a flower on his hand and the letters tattooed on his knuckles. Know More isn't a particularly common knuckle tattoo and to also have the same style of flower on the hand is definitely suspect.
Even that type of flower as a hand tattoo isn't very common.
But a sad thing overall, imagine he's stuck with this identity now but it no longer bears fruits for him. I assume this person didn't have much of an identity in the first place..
From the twitter link posted here it seems that "their" field of study is tattoos. The video of the talk of the impostor has a slide in the background with Victorian era tattoos. Seems like they both take them very seriously.
This seems a case of a high level mythomaniac. Funnily enough I've encountered some in the recent years that got me thinking if this kind of psycho disease was increasing or simply I got more knowledgeable in a way that I started spotting it. I really don't know, because we can clearly spot this kind of people today (Trump anyone?) but is it getting worse or have they always been there?
It something impressive the lenghts these kind of people go with their lies and deception, keeping a straight face even when the lie is obvious.
I'm pretty sure people who habitually lie about basically everything (Sayre's law applies, for some weird reason) are simply believing their own lies and cannot consistently tell reality from their made-up world. Any conflict between reality and their world is met with a defensive response (straight up acting like something was not brought up, shallow dismissals, changing topics, aggression).
I didn't know there's a special word for this - mythomaniac - I just figured these guys are somewhere on the psychopath/sociopath scale.
Edit: Trump put a slightly different twist on it, he lied as a show of power/dominance by lying about something which is immediately and obviously false, then observing that no one speaks up (i.e. submitting to his power).
So this guy just got found out, got kicked out of school, changed his social media profiles and then just... evaporated? Just running around out there doing whatever with another guy's tattoos?
I think the positive here is that more people got to learn about the person's work. Sure he didn't get credited, but the important thing should be his research, not himself.
And the tattoos I can't even begin to understand what the issue is. Walking down a busy street, I can't begin to count how many mimicked tattoos I see.
I expect that in my lifetime there will be (or already has been) an imposter that gets a leg up on someone in this way and pulls it off- “no, I wrote the article first, they stole it from me and published it. Here are my drafts which predate their submission. Fire them, not me.”
As the imposter this is a really dangerous gambit, though. If it succeeds, and that person stops doing academic work, who does the imposter plagiarize from?
I suppose they would have to find someone else to plagiarize if they wanted to continue their con. I don’t think an impostor would set out to do this, they would prepare it as a backup plan in case they were discovered. At that point it’s dangerous, but the alternative is to give up and confess. That would make it seem like a worthy last ditch effort. Maybe if they pull it off they aren’t interested in sustaining the con long term, but rather just enough to solidify their gains and move on to something else.
Success predicts success. Maybe it works out: you get funding, you're regarded as a smart scientist etc, so your work is judged with that in mind.
Especially in those parts of social sciences that are very essay-heavy and don't deal with disprovable claims and experiments, the difference between "that's total nonsense" and "another intelligent contribution by a fellow scholar" might be mostly knowing the author.
They could transition into postmodern studies and use the Postmodern Generator [1] to get their new stuff.
I have been a victim of this, and it is still an ongoing matter. If you don't want to find yourself a victim of these kinds of people, then you better keep these two links as a reference, and always take them to heart:
People who do this sort of stuff have narcissistic traits at minimum, which of course is an armchair diagnosis. But, these people really do not need to meet the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder. All you need to know is that they are people who will harm you in some incredibly hurtful way, because they have contempt for you being yourself.
Some of these people have antisocial traits, and are malignant narcissists. Some of them outright have both narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.
Regardless, these people tend to masquerade as "entrepreneurs", "researchers", "thinkers", "doers", or as "authors", when their entire works are just plagiarized material from others. People make entire livings off of such grifts and it becomes a central identity, if not their only identity. Of course, it is always about getting the next award or accolade, even though it is "empty" to them because they have intrinsically low self-esteem and an unbelievably fragile ego. But, of course they would never want you to know that.
It is not a figment of my imagination: There were things going on besides multiple forms of outright plagiarism within several submissions. Because there are often multiple forms of plagiarism occurring in the same submission, once you catch it, it's pretty clear cut that it was deliberate. It is not only in writing but at actual conferences when she gives speeches.
The individual I mention is known to wear a custom "code t-shirt" of the program (aka "product") that she claims to be her original work, to conferences and meetups. The t-shirt along with the code itself has the /exact same specific variable names/ that I provided via email to a colleague years ago. She is also seen wearing this t-shirt in several media publications. She also publishes "research" based on this "work" in peer-reviewed journal articles. It really is quite disgusting.
I was not talking about your experience , by any means, sorry if you understood that I was aluding to your comment, its not the actual situation at all
I was comenting on the parent of my comment, not on your comment, and I was talking, clearly, in a general sense, in a quite specific situation that is absolutely different then your experience
I doubt it's a narcissist and I'm saying that as a narcissist myself.
That fragile ego basically means narcissists are afraid of humiliation. On top that, mentally everything is build around shoring up my ego to compensate for the low self esteem. My ego. Not someone else's ego. I'd have to do some really weird mental gymnastics to be satisfied with copying someone else's work, that would just lower my ego even more. I guess it's doable if I straight up believe I'm that other person? But now we're talking about something really special and uncommon. Not just a narcissist anymore. The narcissistic self deception is involuntary, I can't just say "well, I know I'm copying the work of that person, but now I believe that's me." It doesn't work like that.
The person doing this clearly knew there was considerable risk of getting caught and being exposed. That's someone that doesn't give a fuck about the social consequences.
So you were closer with the malignants, but it's probably just a sociopath (ASPD). A lot more rare in general and more willing to take risks.
I'd say it's fairly rare. Most therapists often won't diagnose patients, because it's considered not helpful to the trust relationship and trying to make someone that's narcissistic understand that they are narcissistic is... Hard, because of the splitting and the disconnect between the internal self image and the external presentation.
They'll often mirror or turn it back on you and there's not much you can say at that point ("I'm a narcissist? No! You are a narcissist!"). It's a tricky disorder.
I don’t quite understand the downvotes. Narcissists, psychopaths, autistic, etc are technical terms, not an abstract labeling for “smart person with completely inhuman thinking”.
Pointing at who seems to be an insane man and calling him a “narcissist” is like pointing at a Chrome window and saying “this folder on Desktop” and okay grandma I get it but that is technically wrong. OP is just explaining the situation.
The Internet when I grew up was abundant of horror stories around encounter with insane person, and there were definitely multiple different modes of failure, like charging towards the storyteller with a knife in hand, the person leaving the identity behind as if it was nothing, storyteller being the unreliable narrator, etc etc. Usually the best response seemed to be either to display a skill that the imposter can’t replicate, or applying hard rules that allows no alternate interpretations so that they cannot elongate the drama.
I don’t know which cliche suggests which diagnosis and armchair diagnosis is at best useless, but it is true that there are types, and if OP thinks it’s not the same type as his own, that is at least an anecdatapoint.
e: ok I didn’t read the top comment. Clinical distinction don’t matter, you just have to know how to defend against. And it’s documented. That is right. I’ll keep this comment as a shame to myself.
Mm, no, I think I agree with your original assessment. You and the top comment both seem correct.
(Also, no need to think of it as a shame game. It's more interesting to learn something.)
Let's put it this way. If you're mistaken, then I don't understand it either, so hopefully someone will explain.
More concretely, reading the list of how to defend against narcissism, it felt like lots of people tend to have some of these traits, but usually not all of them. If it's a partial match, how should you interpret it? Is there some sort of narcissistic meter that goes up as you accumulate points?
I disagree that the label is "moralist". The essay outlines various types of moralism, which I think is important to distinct them. Such as vain vs cruel and pure vs impure moralism.
However, regardless of all that, there are two important questions to ask when dealing with moralism. First, what's the motivation? Second, what's the method of implementation? A cruel moralist is motivated by self-validation in moral superiority, and a vain moralist is motivated by group-validation (vanity) that uses moralism as a tool (their method of implementation).
In this case, it is vanity that is the motivation, but narcissism in how they go about doing it. Moralism is neither a motivation, nor a method of execution.
I was also a victim of this. At my first engineering job, I came up with a novel way to handle project estimation for a very large company, using a combination of basic statistical techniques (hierarchical linear regression, markov chains). It replaced an existing terrible model by the resident PhD in statistics, which was doing a very simple 2 degree fitted curve.
Anyways, this person seemed to really dislike our team and what we had accomplished, and was constantly trying to road block us for a long time. Then out of the blue, he asked us to come and explain it to him. I thought he was reconciling, and we showed him all the details and spent a while so he could understand. We provided him the implementation as well. Then 3-4 weeks later, he quit to go work at Apple. It seemed like he'd stolen our work to improve his career.
Maybe we should have. This was well over a decade ago now. It wasn't something we could easily prove either. We just had strong suspicions based on the timing and his behavior.
It wouldn't surprise me at all. One of the things that we check for during technical DD is to ensure that all of the IP the company claims as theirs really is theirs. Large dumps of code into a repo just after incorporation or just after a new hire are pretty suspicious and require an explanation, such an explanation isn't always available.
Good team leads / code reviewers / laywers can be real assets because they will stop such a thing before it gets to the stage of doing significant damage to the company.
If you have a 1000x programmer on your team you may have a problem (or you've hired Fabrice).
Copyright lawsuits have one interesting property: the statue of limitations starts when you first became aware of the infringement, not when the deed was done. So you may still have a case, even today, because technically you are still unaware that the infringement happened, it may have happened, but you have no proof. If such proof ever surfaces then that would be the point in time to trigger the suit, and such proof can be obtained through the weirdest channels.
I once became aware a company had been started by an ex employee based on a large body of code that I wrote, and through sheer chance I found a tiny sliver of really hard proof. That's what set the ball rolling.
About 15 years ago I worked on a command line shell that was adding a remoting feature which would allow you to execute a shell command on a remote machine. When the first cut of this came out, it seemed like it worked fine, but I decided to try it across a high latency connection - specifically setting up an inbound connection to the public internet and routing it from our office in the US to a proxy in Hong Kong and back. It performed about like a connection over a 300 baud modem. So I spent a weekend furiously creating a private build that reduced the number of handshakes and added streaming compression that ultimately increased the throughput by something like a factor of 20. On Monday I shared this work with the extended engineering team, and...crickets. I was just a tester after all, you know. The perf was improved after that, but nobody acknowledged the real world testing I'd done, much less the analysis and POC dev work. But flash forward a few years, and my career has progressed. Suddenly I am a manager in a performance review meeting where the promotion of someone I used to work with was up for discussion. I sat across the table from the person's boss when he capped off his argument for promotion with (paraphrasing), "and let's all remember, this is the genius who figured out we needed to add compression to our remoting stream."
Welcome to the club. As one that has been building entire enterprise platforms and adding unique features and functions for decades my vast experiences reflect that there will never be a shortage of people looking to claim others work as their own, even steal it to start another company as this happens very frequently yet just does not get as much attention as it should I believe. I have experienced this at every level even down to one claiming to have built and architected an entire company's systems which was entirely my own effort. I also have direct experience with developers stealing I.P. and starting "new" companies, being discovered, sued, losing the suit and then having their wages garnished for millions in restitution. This is sure to happen more and more as technology is built into all devices needed or not and thus business opportunities increase allowing others to apply those stolen ideas. There are A LOT of narcissist egotists out there and I would encourage everyone to avoid them at all costs as they are toxic to business.
Our neighbor started doing this with my dad. My dad was a school teacher and didn't have any sort of content to plagiarize. The man started buying the same clothing as my father, the same surfboard, same car, dyed his hair the same color and got the same haircut, got fake glasses in the same style and even started copying his mannerisms. It was bizarre. We moved shortly after it started for unrelated reasons but it was pretty terrifying as a young kid.
I'm not sure how serious I should take this site. Most things they bring forth are valid for the majority of discussions when they enter the heat phase. Some other aspects naturally grow with more experience in throwaway discussions. But I don't wanna think that because of this everyone online is a Narcissist.
And what the heck is with those mixed overly specific topics on this site? Is this someones private homepage?
I had a sort of similar incident happen with the youtuber Siraj Raval who was ripping off people's original projects (without attribution) and making videos about them -- and spun a career out of it.
It took many attempts to get him to attribute my project (in accordance with its license) although he was caught repeating this type of behavior later on.
247 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 355 ms ] threadThe one I heard was a variation of "does the person suffer due to the condition or cause harm to other people". That was a side course in university. I actually like that one a lot, since there's really not a clear line between an illness and just being different.
Not surprised I'm getting downvoted by people that support abusers.
"Donald R. Wright, a historian of the West African slave trade, found that elders and griots in The Gambia could not provide detailed information on people living before the mid-19th century, but everyone had heard of Kunta Kinte. Haley had told his story to so many people, and his version of his family history had been assimilated into the oral traditions of The Gambia. Haley had created a case of circular reporting, in which people repeated his words back to him."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots:_The_Saga_of_an_American...
I posted a comment on HN in response to some article about Emacs. Later that day I saw someone had copied my comment word for word in reply to the same article on Reddit.
I still have no idea why someone would do that. I thought at first it was some kind of karma farming operation but the post history of the Reddit user didn't really fit that profile. Plus,it seems like r/emacs would be a really poor choice for that.
I've always been curious to know why someone would do something like this. It's interesting to read about it happening on a way larger scale.
I don't know about that so much. I'm seeing a lot more straight up spam on reddit that looks easy to spot, but I think reddit gave up or something...
I don't think you've tried to bot reddit.
There are a couple of bots (I hope) on Stack Overflow that re-post answers to other questions that are vaguely related based on keywords or tags. They usually didn't make sense in the question context, but were upvoted by people for some reason.
It's a fundamental way to learn.
E.g., suppose people tell me I'm a real funny person. Let me test that.
1. I remember a joke from a professional funny person widely considered to be one of the best.
2. I tell that joke to the people who told me I'm a real funny person.
3. I measure the laughter I get.
If the laughter is different-- e.g., if the people tell me this is by far the funniest thing I've ever said, then I know I've got a lot more to learn about jokes. On the other hand, if it's the same amount of laughter I usually get, perhaps I've got a real talent here.
Of course, it could be these are just close friends and they are primed to think anything I say is funny. Nevertheless, just the act of telling that joke as if it were my own gives me the experience of the timing and emphasis of that comic. It's a gain of knowledge.
That process is an order of magnitude faster on Reddit with control-v. Who know, maybe it even makes that person a bit more cynical about "karma" points. If so, they've at least become a less naive person.
When I was young, all my jokes were from somewhere else (101 funny jokes!) and people thought they were funny. My problem was remembering them.
Nowadays everybody has seen all the good ones ("Bring me my brown pants!")
So now the problem with telling jokes from a "professional funny person" is that if you've heard it before, chances are others have too and you're getting polite laughter.
Subs can limit posts to users with some minimal karma or age. Typically this still permits comment, though harvesting comment karma is then incentivised.
Automoderator, a rule-driven automated moderation tool, can actively interact with posts and comments based on various criteria, including automatically holding or removing posts or comments, messaging submitters, and other actions. This is heavily used on highly-active subs, and pretty well documented.
There’s no easy way to identify comments on the Internet as stolen, so with enough dedication it’ll be possible to create a system that generate profiles with years worth of life by just mishmashing elements. That will help bots pass spam filter developer on top of existing filter itself.
Accounts that will likely get big offers will have a large number of followers, mod large subreddits or targeted subreddits.
Having an active account before the 2016 Russia thing is also worth something. When you want to spread misinformation or do shill marketing, it helps a lot to see any of the following when checking a user's Reddit profile:
- the user didn't register a month ago.
- the user didn't register just to talk exclusively on this subject/product.
- the user registered before Russia's IRA became active on Reddit.
- the user didn't stop exclusively participating in porn or sports subreddits just to make this comment.
- the user is writing enough quality comments that they don't feel compelled to delete most, if not all, of them.
- the user is not making contradictory claims (there is a famous example of someone claiming to be a cis woman in computers who had clearly cis male comments in several cis male oriented subreddits, one of them called something like "semen rentension". They were called out.
- the user posts in subreddits that are on good terms with the subreddit we found their suspicious comment in.
Source: I'm a Reddit moderator and work at a marketing startup.
I wonder at all the indirect ways though. Maybe the account is enhanced to a reasonable reputation and is "banked" for later. Maybe there are levels of reputation that unlock abilities either on or off the site.
Or maybe some people are addicted to those silly internet points.
I'm surprised HN has a visible "score". I remember other sites would cap it at some value, basically reputation: excellent.
I feel that company scrapes sites continuity, trying to elevate their discussions—- which are basically a mad three word race to the fart joke.
Someone submitted the article (edited to sound more academic) to a journal - and with extra authors added. The journal almost published it, but they didn't because at the last minute one of their reviewers felt they recognized the content as having been published before.
I think the moral of the story is that some people are up to no good and we'll never understand why.
Is this some bizarre coincidence?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26604648
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26605151
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26606165
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26605093
This is a compelling idea, but I think they wouldn’t be so obvious about it.
I would also read any MSM news in English that came out about the general topic. I would often find pieces of my research inserted into these articles, by different outlets and different authors. Never any credit given. Sometimes the entire article was centered around something I'd uncovered, and published 4-5 days after posting it in my blog.
He should have contacted the Police immediately. What if a crime was committed nearby where the impostor was located under false identity, and he was later taken into custody instead? I don't know if it qualifies as a crime, but assuming someone else's identity can lead to very dangerous consequences.
But if it's not a movie or music, I guess it might not matter so much.
(on the other hand, the police probably has better things to do)
That's some dedication.. on the flip side it's hard not to feel sorry for someone being so dumb.
EDIT: Or the imposter gave the interview and added a mark up ;)
In a science or engineering class, it might be everything above 40%.
A test which has a significant fraction of scores at the right side of the distribution has saturated the range: there are differences in comprehension and mastery between one 100% and another, which aren't being measured by the test.
The platonic form of a perfect test would have exactly one student per class who got every question correct, but that's impossible to reach except by luck. So a teacher is stuck between writing a test which is too difficult for everyone, and one which is too easy for a substantial fraction of the class. They should pick the first over the second.
While that can feel frustrating (I know, I've been there!) it's likely that you in fact learned the material better than you would have in a class where your level of mastery allowed you to score perfectly for an A+ and in the mid 80s for a B.
No, the teacher is not stuck here. It is rarely the purpose of an academic test to plot students on a wide distribution. That’s just something fun for teachers to do to look for exceptional students.
If the purpose of a test is to determine if an individual student passes some bar of understanding, then there is absolutely no reason to make it extremely difficult and then give A’s to those who got >50% correct.
It shows you what the next level is, reminds you that there's more depth to the subject than you can master in 12 weeks.
As long as you get the letter grade you deserve in the end, why not have an interesting challenge along the way?
Because of its wide applicability to business environments overall, the course was mandatory for some non-CS students. And boy, they hated it.
So, we've slowly grown from 80%->90%->95%.
Joking aside, I agree. There is so many things you could achieve while successfully impersonating someone. Seems like the best you can do in academia is to ruin someone's career. In this case it seemed fortunately "harmless" though.
Fake being a surgeon and they’ll assign you to surgery, etc.
[1] https://wondery.com/shows/dr-death/
Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/451/
Judging by some of the revelations in other business it seems not exceptional for people to add things to their cv's they've never done. And it's much less likely to ever come out, because people are less likely to check (and it might also be more difficult to check)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsMydMDi3rI
Maybe in some cases you can link together some open source projects and pretend you did a lot of work.
There is nothing very special or original about his tattoos. Just about everyone has tattoos that look like this nowadays. Anyone can walk in and select these out of a flash book.
This is like complaining that someone is wearing the same t-shirt.
Yes, I realize the imposter is mimicking other aspects of his personality, but I see a dozen copies of this guy walking around every day.
Do an image search for "more knuckle tattoo" and "hand rose tattoo" you'll see tons.
The dedication to impersonating Dr. Lodder is why it's concerning. The imposter wasn't just submitting Lodder's work as his own; he _permanently altered his body_ to appear more like Lodder.
That might be a coincidence though. He didn't submit only Lodder's work & bio, but also that of others in tattoo studies.
From the article: We discovered he’d also taken magazine articles I’d written and added footnotes to them, stolen catalogue essays I’d authored, and taken other people’s work from old books and paraphrased it.
He might steal work from everyone but because Hipsters All Look The Same, Matt Lodder feels like that guy is copying his personality when they've just read the same magazines and books and then selected the same tattoos out of the catalogue.
They're apparently so excited that they can slag off an academic for having tattoos that are, in their minds, Not All That, that they are excusing themselves from the difficult work of reading TFA.
"Yes, I realize the imposter is mimicking other aspects of his personality"
... like, umm, copying vast tracts of his academic work?
I was only commenting on his tattoos, which are unoriginal and a dime a dozen. The imposter getting those same tattoos is - in this day and age - equivalent to having an identical wardrobe.
Yes, in addition to the actually bizarre and creepy copying of the academic work.
Yes, the "similarity' of the tattoos is just a completely unconnected coincidence to the weird academic stalking and no-one could possibly see any kind of link between the two.
[1] - https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dp4gx/professor-catfished-b...
I've been in postgraduate academia and industry, and been involved in multiple conferences at different levels. I'm not aware of anyone ever running a plagiarism detector on any submitted work at all. Do other people do this? Should the people I work with have been doing it?
But my kids both recently graduated from high school. There is a tendency for teachers of each grade to prepare kids for subsequent grades. I can imagine hearing: "They will have to do this in sixth grade, so we're preparing them now" without questioning why it's done in any grade. This makes the curriculum seem more "advanced."
I actually don't think my kids had to use turnitin. At least, I never heard about it. A bigger concern is writing stuff that might be reviewed by employers, law enforcement, and so forth, or subjected to some kind of automated analysis in the future. They've heard about the social credit score. They're all familiar with the lesson: "Don't write anything that you would not want to see on the front page of the newspaper."
I'm lucky that anything I ever wrote in school is now in the bit bucket.
In High School, I did a (very) short co-op copyrighting for a radio station. At the time I thought it was pretty ridiculous that I had to basically reword everything to mean the same thing, but differently. As a grown-up and seeing the same stories in different papers struck me as ultra-lazy, and then I realized why all that copyrighting had to be done.
There is some deeper irony in misspelling that particular word. Indeed the job title was copywriting. But the reason for the position in the first place was to avoid plagiarism and copyright issues.
According to a cursory search, I probably just invoked the wrath of a lot of righters and writers alike. I'm very picky when it comes to grammar and spelling, so I deserve what comes.
If someone wants to bring meritless flimsy accusations, I wouldn't want to help them do their homework in running down all the accidental matches found by their commercial provider, let alone rewrite my work in the process.
The parent commenter's experience suggests that teachers are not doing that; instead, they're encouraging people to rewrite non-plagiarised work so that it doesn't trigger partial matches.
That is my experience too: teachers don't want the hassle of figuring out what a false positive really means.
But it doesn't apply to conference papers as far as I know or journal articles either. (As in when submitting to a journal for publication).
[1] https://www.turnitin.com/blog/top-15-misconceptions-about-tu...
Luckily it ended with him resubmitting the paper to the checker and it coming back clean. (I got an A.)
I had this happen once, except it was because someone else in one of his other classes had the same name as me.
From the pictures of him and his colleague it seems that the people who study tattoos are into getting tattoos as well, I find it absolutely plausible that the guy got them separately. It's not like Letters On Fingers is such a new concept that everyone who does that copied him.
Even that type of flower as a hand tattoo isn't very common.
Somebody should create a registry where people can lay claim to their tattoo's originality. Add blockchain, call it TATS, instant hit.
You do know that it's about someone who plagiarized another person's academic papers as, apparently, his entire output as a Master's student?
That's one dedicated identity thief.
It something impressive the lenghts these kind of people go with their lies and deception, keeping a straight face even when the lie is obvious.
I didn't know there's a special word for this - mythomaniac - I just figured these guys are somewhere on the psychopath/sociopath scale.
Edit: Trump put a slightly different twist on it, he lied as a show of power/dominance by lying about something which is immediately and obviously false, then observing that no one speaks up (i.e. submitting to his power).
Just FYI it's known as the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon or the Frequency illusion [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
I guess thats why the old adage of never getting hand tattoos applies very well to copying identities.
And the tattoos I can't even begin to understand what the issue is. Walking down a busy street, I can't begin to count how many mimicked tattoos I see.
Especially in those parts of social sciences that are very essay-heavy and don't deal with disprovable claims and experiments, the difference between "that's total nonsense" and "another intelligent contribution by a fellow scholar" might be mostly knowing the author.
They could transition into postmodern studies and use the Postmodern Generator [1] to get their new stuff.
[1]: https://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Perfect Blue vibes!
Narcissists Online: http://www.issendai.com/psychology/narcissism/narcissists-on...
What to Remember When Dealing with a Narcissist: http://www.issendai.com/psychology/narcissism/narcissists-wh...
People who do this sort of stuff have narcissistic traits at minimum, which of course is an armchair diagnosis. But, these people really do not need to meet the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder. All you need to know is that they are people who will harm you in some incredibly hurtful way, because they have contempt for you being yourself.
Some of these people have antisocial traits, and are malignant narcissists. Some of them outright have both narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.
Regardless, these people tend to masquerade as "entrepreneurs", "researchers", "thinkers", "doers", or as "authors", when their entire works are just plagiarized material from others. People make entire livings off of such grifts and it becomes a central identity, if not their only identity. Of course, it is always about getting the next award or accolade, even though it is "empty" to them because they have intrinsically low self-esteem and an unbelievably fragile ego. But, of course they would never want you to know that.
And activists.
sometimes there are misunderstandings and some in the circle may have the impression that there is some masquerading going on
sooner or later, I guess, things naturally clarify as time flows and the views are prettier
The individual I mention is known to wear a custom "code t-shirt" of the program (aka "product") that she claims to be her original work, to conferences and meetups. The t-shirt along with the code itself has the /exact same specific variable names/ that I provided via email to a colleague years ago. She is also seen wearing this t-shirt in several media publications. She also publishes "research" based on this "work" in peer-reviewed journal articles. It really is quite disgusting.
I was comenting on the parent of my comment, not on your comment, and I was talking, clearly, in a general sense, in a quite specific situation that is absolutely different then your experience
That fragile ego basically means narcissists are afraid of humiliation. On top that, mentally everything is build around shoring up my ego to compensate for the low self esteem. My ego. Not someone else's ego. I'd have to do some really weird mental gymnastics to be satisfied with copying someone else's work, that would just lower my ego even more. I guess it's doable if I straight up believe I'm that other person? But now we're talking about something really special and uncommon. Not just a narcissist anymore. The narcissistic self deception is involuntary, I can't just say "well, I know I'm copying the work of that person, but now I believe that's me." It doesn't work like that.
The person doing this clearly knew there was considerable risk of getting caught and being exposed. That's someone that doesn't give a fuck about the social consequences.
So you were closer with the malignants, but it's probably just a sociopath (ASPD). A lot more rare in general and more willing to take risks.
Self-aware narcissists are pretty rare too. Can you e-mail me? Info in profile.
They'll often mirror or turn it back on you and there's not much you can say at that point ("I'm a narcissist? No! You are a narcissist!"). It's a tricky disorder.
https://www.reddit.com/r/narcissism/comments/mde5fh/biweekly...
It's my post/sub. You're free to dig in my history and/or DM me.
And of course there are plenty more self aware narcissists to hang out with as well.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting it.
Pointing at who seems to be an insane man and calling him a “narcissist” is like pointing at a Chrome window and saying “this folder on Desktop” and okay grandma I get it but that is technically wrong. OP is just explaining the situation.
The Internet when I grew up was abundant of horror stories around encounter with insane person, and there were definitely multiple different modes of failure, like charging towards the storyteller with a knife in hand, the person leaving the identity behind as if it was nothing, storyteller being the unreliable narrator, etc etc. Usually the best response seemed to be either to display a skill that the imposter can’t replicate, or applying hard rules that allows no alternate interpretations so that they cannot elongate the drama.
I don’t know which cliche suggests which diagnosis and armchair diagnosis is at best useless, but it is true that there are types, and if OP thinks it’s not the same type as his own, that is at least an anecdatapoint.
e: ok I didn’t read the top comment. Clinical distinction don’t matter, you just have to know how to defend against. And it’s documented. That is right. I’ll keep this comment as a shame to myself.
(Also, no need to think of it as a shame game. It's more interesting to learn something.)
Let's put it this way. If you're mistaken, then I don't understand it either, so hopefully someone will explain.
More concretely, reading the list of how to defend against narcissism, it felt like lots of people tend to have some of these traits, but usually not all of them. If it's a partial match, how should you interpret it? Is there some sort of narcissistic meter that goes up as you accumulate points?
It seems hard to define.
https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-cruel-moraliser-uses-a-halo-t...
I disagree that the label is "moralist". The essay outlines various types of moralism, which I think is important to distinct them. Such as vain vs cruel and pure vs impure moralism.
However, regardless of all that, there are two important questions to ask when dealing with moralism. First, what's the motivation? Second, what's the method of implementation? A cruel moralist is motivated by self-validation in moral superiority, and a vain moralist is motivated by group-validation (vanity) that uses moralism as a tool (their method of implementation).
In this case, it is vanity that is the motivation, but narcissism in how they go about doing it. Moralism is neither a motivation, nor a method of execution.
Anyways, this person seemed to really dislike our team and what we had accomplished, and was constantly trying to road block us for a long time. Then out of the blue, he asked us to come and explain it to him. I thought he was reconciling, and we showed him all the details and spent a while so he could understand. We provided him the implementation as well. Then 3-4 weeks later, he quit to go work at Apple. It seemed like he'd stolen our work to improve his career.
Good team leads / code reviewers / laywers can be real assets because they will stop such a thing before it gets to the stage of doing significant damage to the company.
If you have a 1000x programmer on your team you may have a problem (or you've hired Fabrice).
Copyright lawsuits have one interesting property: the statue of limitations starts when you first became aware of the infringement, not when the deed was done. So you may still have a case, even today, because technically you are still unaware that the infringement happened, it may have happened, but you have no proof. If such proof ever surfaces then that would be the point in time to trigger the suit, and such proof can be obtained through the weirdest channels.
I once became aware a company had been started by an ex employee based on a large body of code that I wrote, and through sheer chance I found a tiny sliver of really hard proof. That's what set the ball rolling.
Welcome to the club. As one that has been building entire enterprise platforms and adding unique features and functions for decades my vast experiences reflect that there will never be a shortage of people looking to claim others work as their own, even steal it to start another company as this happens very frequently yet just does not get as much attention as it should I believe. I have experienced this at every level even down to one claiming to have built and architected an entire company's systems which was entirely my own effort. I also have direct experience with developers stealing I.P. and starting "new" companies, being discovered, sued, losing the suit and then having their wages garnished for millions in restitution. This is sure to happen more and more as technology is built into all devices needed or not and thus business opportunities increase allowing others to apply those stolen ideas. There are A LOT of narcissist egotists out there and I would encourage everyone to avoid them at all costs as they are toxic to business.
Interestingly enough, he was a PHD student.
In a way, a PhD could be seen as the ultimate intellectual validation.
I'm not sure how serious I should take this site. Most things they bring forth are valid for the majority of discussions when they enter the heat phase. Some other aspects naturally grow with more experience in throwaway discussions. But I don't wanna think that because of this everyone online is a Narcissist.
And what the heck is with those mixed overly specific topics on this site? Is this someones private homepage?
It took many attempts to get him to attribute my project (in accordance with its license) although he was caught repeating this type of behavior later on.
You need to meet him in person. He sounds like an awesome freak. There is way more to this story than just "plagiarism".