The world’s biggest problem? Powerful psychopaths. | Brian Klaas

Who Gets Power and How it Changes Us."

Some people question why the author wrote this book, considering that power has been a longstanding issue. However, despite advancements in society and technology, we still have ineffective leaders governing our lives. The author believes that by understanding how power operates, we can find better solutions to address this problem.

The narrator became interested in understanding power after conducting field research on rigged elections, political violence, coups, and civil wars. They noticed that certain personality traits were common among those in positions of power and wanted to explore if these traits were universal and how they contribute to the corruption of absolute power.

Lord Acton, a political figure from Britain in the 1800s, is known for his famous quote "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." He wrote this in response to a historian who was whitewashing the brutality of the Spanish Inquisition. The book argues that while power does have a corrupting influence, there are also broken systems that attract and promote individuals seeking power for their own gain. Solving this problem requires understanding how these factors interact and designing better systems to ensure better outcomes.

Main Arguments about Power Worse people seek power and corruptible individuals often obtain it.

Power has a negative impact on people, leading to corruption.

Society is attracted to the wrong types of leaders for misguided reasons.

Systems can be designed to ensure that better individuals are in positions of power and use it for public service.

One reason is that some systems of power, like homeowner's associations, have no barriers and attract individuals who enjoy controlling others. This can lead to abuse of power and the need for better system design to prevent such individuals from gaining authority.

When power becomes costly and invasive, only those who are power-hungry will be willing to pay the price. To make systems of power more attractive, we need to create a society where ordinary people can serve their community without facing extreme costs or harassment.

Self-selection bias refers to the phenomenon where certain types of people are more likely to put themselves forward for positions of power, leading to a skew in who holds those positions. This bias is important to understand in order to address and improve how power functions.

Survivorship bias is a form of bias where we only see the people who have successfully obtained and maintained power, while ignoring those who didn't seek or obtain power, or those who didn't survive in power for long. This bias can lead to incorrect conclusions when analyzing data or making decisions based on the experiences of successful individuals.

Survivorship bias is linked to cultural evolution, where successful societies that have hierarchical structures and strong armies tend to pass on their genes through generations. This has led to a bias towards more rigid hierarchical structures in human society over time.

Evolutionary psychology suggests that our attraction to physically strong and dominant leaders stems from a time when it was adaptive for survival. However, in modern society, this bias is no longer relevant or beneficial. Recognizing these biases is the first step towards countering them.

Demographic Bias in Power The imbalance of power in terms of demographics, particularly the overrepresentation of white men in leadership positions, is a result of both systemic biases and representation problems. Racism and misogyny play a significant role, as well as biases against names that sound like they belong to minorities or women. Babyfaceness also influences perceptions and evaluations based on ingroup versus outgroup dynamics.

Addressing Demographic Bias To address demographic bias in power structures, it is important to tackle underlying issues such as racism. However, short-term solutions can include anonymizing promotions and recruitment processes to reduce biased evaluations. Starting from school levels by anonymizing exams can also contribute towards creating more equitable systems with greater diversity at all levels of leadership selection.

Our preference for leaders can be influenced by physical appearance, as studies have shown that people tend to choose leaders based on how their face looks. This bias towards appearance also extends to other features like height and race. It is important for organizations to recognize these biases in leadership selection processes and actively work towards countering them through scrutiny and evaluation based on merit rather than superficial traits.

The Story of Steve Raucci Steve Raucci, a psychopathic janitor in the Schenectady New York school district, used his dark triad traits (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism) to manipulate and climb up the ranks. He engaged in schemes to unseat the district energy czar and eventually became a major figure in the union.

Dark Triad Traits The dark triad traits consist of Machiavellianism (the ends justify the means), psychopathy (lack of empathy or remorse), and narcissism (massive ego). Successful psychopaths are able to blend in as normal functioning members while hatching elaborate plots for personal gain. Superficial charm is a common trait among both successful and unsuccessful psychopaths.

Detecting Psychopaths Detecting individuals with dark triad traits is challenging due to their ability to mimic normal behavior when necessary. Traditional methods like job interviews can be easily manipulated by superficially charming individuals with these traits. Measures such as questionnaires exist but may not always provide accurate results due to potential dishonesty from those being assessed.

Psychopaths may have an advantage in high-stress situations, such as bomb diffusal or surgery, due to their lack of emotional reaction. However, the potential risks and ethical concerns make it unlikely for people to willingly accept psychopathic individuals in these roles.

Some argue that a moderate level of psychopathy can benefit leaders by allowing them to make rational decisions without being overwhelmed by empathy. However, maintaining an optimal level of psychological distance from those affected by their decisions is crucial for effective leadership, as it encourages thoughtful decision-making and consideration for the well-being of others. Psychopaths, on the other hand, are unable to develop this necessary psychological distance.

The dark triad traits, consisting of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, can occur in isolation but are often clustered together. While being high on the psychopathy score is not ideal for leadership positions due to impulsivity and risk-taking behavior, individuals with elevated levels of Machiavellianism or narcissism may be better at obtaining power or making more money respectively. However, current analyses show that those in positions of power tend to score higher on the dark triad traits than the general public.

Dictators often possess dark triad traits such as Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. The lack of constraints on their power allows them to abuse others freely, while the ruthless nature of being a dictator appeals to their psychopathic tendencies. Psychopaths also have an illusory control belief that they can outsmart consequences, making risky positions like dictatorship even more attractive to them despite the potential dangers involved.

Systems can help select better leaders by systematically evaluating past recruitment and promotion processes to identify biases, designing systems that deter individuals with abusive tendencies from seeking power, implementing screening processes to weed out unsuitable candidates, and increasing scrutiny on those in top positions of power. It is important to focus on redesigning systems as if the worst person in the world is trying to obtain power and ensuring mechanisms are in place for upward scrutiny of those in leadership roles.

Systems play a crucial role in determining the behavior and choices of individuals within them. Rotten systems attract corrupt people, while good systems attract honest individuals. Additionally, bad systems amplify the negative effects of power on people's psychology and decision-making, leading to worse choices being made. Changing these systems is essential for effective governance and achieving positive outcomes.

A study on parking tickets for diplomats in the United Nations revealed insights into abusive power. The study showed that before enforcement, diplomats from corrupt countries like Yemen and Egypt accumulated a high number of parking fines, while those from rule-following cultures like Japan or Norway had fewer fines. However, after enforcement was implemented, there was a convergence as everyone started following the rules. This highlights the importance of attracting individuals with integrity to positions of power and creating systems that incentivize rule-following behavior while imposing consequences for breaking them.

Society often fails to screen out bad leaders because there is a lack of training, oversight, and scrutiny for politicians compared to other positions. Volunteer tour guides face more screening and safeguarding measures than those in power, which highlights the need for recalibrating society's approach towards leadership selection.

Rethinking Democracy: Psychological Screening and Asking the Right Questions The narrator suggests implementing psychological screening for top political positions to ensure leaders are mentally fit. They also propose asking politicians what their goals are with power and when they would consider stepping down, as a way to expose those who are power-hungry or lack clear objectives.

Increasing Oversight through Randomness To address corruption and partisanship in politics, the narrator proposes creating shadow bodies of randomly selected individuals who provide oversight to real decision-making bodies. These random assortments of people would offer different perspectives, be less obsessed with power, and potentially come up with more compromise-driven solutions than elected officials.

The Influence of Recruitment on Policing The recruitment process for police officers plays a significant role in determining who ends up in the uniform. A case study from Doraville, Georgia highlights how an aggressive and militarized recruitment video attracts individuals who are drawn to power and violence.

The Importance of Careful Recruitment Careful consideration should be given to the type of individuals being recruited into law enforcement. New Zealand's successful "Do You Care Enough To Be a Cop?" campaign demonstrates that recruiting candidates based on their commitment to community service can lead to positive outcomes, such as reducing tension between police and minority communities. It is crucial not only to address misconduct within policing but also focus on selecting candidates with empathy and a genuine desire to serve their communities.

The narrator discusses the criticism they have received for their views on police recruitment, emphasizing that there is a middle ground between the right-wing and left-wing critiques. They argue that while it may not solve all problems, better oversight and recruitment can make policing better. The narrator acknowledges the deep-rooted issues of racism and violence within police departments but believes in making marginal improvements to address these problems. They also highlight how demographic imbalances within police departments can affect both community perceptions of policing as well as who decides to become a police officer.

Thought experiments like the trolley problem and the screaming baby problem can help us evaluate the decisions of our leaders by testing our moral intuitions. When assessing leaders, we should consider if they made the best choice available given the information and alternatives at hand, rather than simply condemning them based on a bad outcome.

Abhisit Vejjajiva's Decisions and the Complexity of Power Former Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva faced a difficult decision during a mass uprising in which armed militias were causing violence. He made the controversial choice to order live rounds on protestors, resulting in numerous deaths. While his actions are morally reprehensible, it highlights the complexity of leadership when faced with no good choices.

Evaluating Leaders Based on Alternative Choices The case of Abhisit Vejjajiva prompts us to consider how we evaluate leaders based on alternative choices they face. Comparisons can be drawn to Winston Churchill's decision not to warn an Australian ship about an impending attack due to keeping Nazi code-breaking secret during World War II. Both cases involve impossible choices where lives are at stake, highlighting the moral complexities leaders navigate in such situations.

After Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, the doctors at Memorial Hospital were faced with the difficult task of allocating limited resources to patients. One doctor, thrust into a position of power during this crisis, made decisions that resulted in deaths - actions she would not have taken under normal circumstances. This case highlights how being placed in positions of power can lead individuals to make choices they wouldn't otherwise consider, often with severe consequences.

When evaluating people in power, it is important to consider four mitigating factors that may make power appear corrupt the problem of dirty hands, learning to be bad, opportunity for harm, and scrutiny. These factors can help us accurately diagnose the influence of power and make better decisions regarding accountability and system improvement.

The Four Mitigating Factors The first factor is "dirty hands," where individuals in positions of power face difficult choices with no good options. This makes them appear corrupt when they are actually dealing with unavoidable harm caused by their position. The second factor is learning; as people gain experience in wielding power, they become more skilled at inflicting harm on others without necessarily becoming morally worse themselves. The third factor is opportunity; those in positions of power have more chances to cause harm compared to those who lack such authority or subordinates. Lastly, there's scrutiny - although not enough - individuals in powerful roles receive more attention from journalists than ordinary citizens do which leads to a higher likelihood that instances of bad behavior will come under public observation.