Tag: one-percenters

Psychology’s “Dark Triad” and the Billionaire Class, Part 2

Posted on by kathiemm

by Roy Eidelson

Source: Roy Eidelson

Psychopathy

The second component of the Dark Triad — psychopathy — refers to a person’s lack of empathy toward others and a tendency to behave in a callous and uncaring manner toward them. Here too, research by psychologists supports the view that, compared to their “lower-class” counterparts, “upper-class” individuals act with less compassion — and also fall short on certain basic skills necessary for building positive connections with other people.

In one experiment, for example, lower-income participants were substantially more willing to take on extra work to help out a distressed research partner than were the upper-income participants. In another study, lower-class participants demonstrated a stronger compassion-related physiological response than did their upper-class counterparts after watching a video of children suffering from cancer. In a related study, the lower-class participants in a stressful interview process showed greater sensitivity and compassion toward their competitors than did the upper-class interviewees. And in an experiment with four-year-old children, those from less wealthy homes behaved more altruistically than those from wealthier homes, donating more of their prize tokens to children they were told were hospitalized.

In other studies, individuals from a lower social class were significantly better than upper-class participants at judging the emotions being portrayed when they were presented with photos of human faces. The researchers concluded that this enhanced ability may reflect the reality that those who are less well-off must rely more on accurately reading their social environment, because they depend more on interpersonal relationships and collaborative efforts in their daily lives. On the other hand, individuals with extensive material resources like today’s super-rich are more likely to find close relationships, especially with people of lesser means, quite unnecessary in their goal-oriented pursuits — and their perspective-taking abilities may suffer as a result.

In the business world, a compassion deficit among members of the billionaire class isn’t very hard to see. For example, rarely do we hear the CEOs of today’s corporate behemoths acknowledge the critical role that they themselves play in blocking upward mobility and financial security for millions of working-class Americans. Most obviously, union-busting and related “right-to-work” efforts suppress the wages and benefits that could dramatically improve the lives of working families. More broadly, despite substantial increases in worker productivity over the past few decades, the super-rich have directed the rewards of economic growth into their own pockets rather than into their employees’ paychecks. Likewise, international trade agreements, written in secret with strong corporate representation, have prioritized protecting profits for huge companies over safeguarding wages, human rights, and the environment. Perhaps this callousness is captured especially well by Amazon’s billionaire CEO Jeff Bezos, who reportedly once described his negotiating approach as similar to “the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle.”

Narcissism

The third trait of the Dark Triad — narcissism — refers to an individual’s sense of superiority over other people and convictions about personal entitlement to special treatment. Once again, in a diverse set of psychological studies, individuals of higher social class displayed greater levels of narcissism and entitlement than did their less wealthy counterparts.

In one study, for example, participants who rated themselves higher on a measure of socioeconomic status also scored higher on a scale designed to measure psychological entitlement; a sample item from that scale is “I honestly feel I’m just more deserving than others.” Another study instead used a nonverbal measure of entitlement. Participants looked at sets of circles of varying sizes and were asked to identify which size circle best described how they saw themselves compared to others. Those of higher social status picked larger circles as their self-descriptors than did those of lower social status. In a third study that used a behavioral measure of narcissism, upper-class participants were more likely than their lower-class counterparts to make use of a wall mirror before having their photos taken. In a survey study, researchers in Germany directly assessed a sample of very high net-worth individuals. They too found that this group scored higher on a measure of narcissism compared to a separate sample of people of lesser economic means.

In the board room and beyond, the narcissistic super-rich are accustomed to being in charge and to having things their way — unlike those they sometimes refer to as “the little people.” Of course, they don’t necessarily feel fortunate in this regard because, by their own account, they fully deserve all the benefits and privileges bestowed upon them. The special favors they receive are particularly apparent when we consider the corrupting influence of wealth on “equal justice under law,” the hallowed words engraved atop the Supreme Court Building in our nation’s capital. Indeed, unequal treatment runs the gamut from the likelihood of arrest and prosecution to the leniency offered in sentencing. As one example of these unwritten norms, wealthy tax cheats have developed a broad repertoire of arguments — based on notions of personal superiority — for why they should receive a light sentence or no sentence at all after being caught, prosecuted, and found guilty (all rarities in their own right). Their farfetched justifications — which some judges nevertheless find persuasive — include all of the following: they’ve already suffered sufficient public humiliation for their misdeeds; although they cheated, they’ve also been generous in their charitable donations; the fines they’ve paid were sufficiently punitive; and their status as “job creators” makes it unwise to remove them from the community and put them behind bars.

Note from KMM: Pegean says, Narcissism? Narcissist? Where have i heard those words before? Somewhere in this blog….

Give peace a chance: Don’t believe the war profiteers, Part 2

Posted on by kathiemm
Vereshchagin’s painting The Apotheosis of War (1871) came to be admired as one of the earliest artistic expressions of pacifism – Public Domain

by Roy Eidelson

My research shows that the one percenters’ manipulative messages—what I call “mind games”—target five concerns that dominate our daily lives: namely, issues of vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. These are the psychological templates we use to make sense of the world around us. Each is associated with a key question we ask ourselves regularly: Are we safe? Are we being treated fairly? Who should we trust? Are we good enough? And, can we control what happens to us? And it’s no coincidence that each is also linked to a powerful emotion that can be hard to control: fear, anger, suspicion, pride, and despair, respectively.

War profiteers prey on these five concerns with two simple goals in mind. First, they aim to create and maintain an American public that either embraces or at least accepts an endless war mentality. And second, they use these mind games to marginalize and disempower anti-war voices. For each of these five concerns, I’d like to provide two examples of the mind games I’m talking about, and then discuss how we can counter them.

Let’s start with vulnerability. Whether as quickly passing thoughts or haunting worries, we tend to wonder if the people we care about are in harm’s way, and if there might be danger on the horizon. Right or wrong, our judgments on these matters go a long way in determining the choices we make and the actions we take. Our focus on vulnerability isn’t surprising. It’s only when we think we’re safe that we comfortably turn our attention to other things. Unfortunately, however, we’re not very good at assessing risks or the effectiveness of potential responses to them. That’s why psychological appeals targeting these vulnerability concerns are a core element of the war machine’s propaganda arsenal.

“It’s A Dangerous World” is one vulnerability mind game that war profiteers regularly use to build public support for their greed-driven activities. They argue that their actions are necessary in order to keep everyone safe from ominous threats. They exaggerate or entirely fabricate these dangers—whether they’re talking about dominoes falling to the Red Menace in Southeast Asia, or the Axis of Evil and mushroom clouds over U.S. cities, or anti-war protestors purportedly posing a threat to our national security. They know that we’re soft targets for such psychological tactics because, in our desire to avoid being unprepared when danger strikes, we’re quick to imagine catastrophic outcomes no matter how unlikely they may be. That’s why we can be easy prey when they urge us to fall in line, comply with their instructions, and perhaps relinquish our civil rights as well.

At the same time, war machine representatives often turn to a second vulnerability mind game—“Change Is Dangerous”—when they’re trying to marginalize their critics. Here, when a proposed reform would hamper their ambitions, they mislead us by insisting that these changes will place everyone in greater jeopardy—whether the proposal is about reducing our staggering 800 overseas military bases; or withdrawing troops from Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq; or cutting our enormous defense budget. This mind game often works because of what psychologists call “status quo bias.” That is, we generally prefer to keep things the way they are—even if they’re not particularly good—rather than face the uncertainty of less familiar options, even if those other alternatives are exactly what’s needed to make the world a safer place. But, of course, our welfare is not the most pressing issue as far as the war profiteers are concerned.

Let’s turn now to injustice, the second core concern. Cases of real or perceived mistreatment frequently stir anger and resentment, as well as an urge to right wrongs and bring accountability to those who are responsible. That can all be very good. But our perceptions about what’s just and what’s not are imperfect. This makes us potential easy targets for manipulation by those who have a selfish interest in shaping our views of right and wrong to their advantage—and it’s exactly what representatives of the war machine work hard to do.

For example, “We’re Fighting Injustice” is one of the war profiteers’ favorite injustice mind games for generating public support for endless wars. Here, they insist that their actions reflect an abiding commitment to combating wrongdoing—whether they’re falsely arguing that Iran has engaged in unprovoked hostility; or that Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, who exposed U.S. war crimes, deserve punishment for treason; or that government surveillance and disruption of anti-war groups are necessary responses to purported unlawful activity. This mind game is designed to misappropriate and misdirect our sense of outrage over injustice. It takes advantage of our psychological tendency to believe that the world is just, and to therefore assume that those who have obtained positions of power are fair-minded rather than driven by craven self-interest—even though their actions so often harm rather than help the prospects for peace.

Simultaneously, “We’re the Victims” is a second injustice mind game, and it’s used to marginalize critics. When their policies or actions are condemned, representatives of the war machine brazenly complain of being mistreated themselves. So, for example, the Pentagon expressed outrage that the Abu Ghraib torture photos were disseminated without its permission; the White House blusters that the International Criminal Court has a vendetta against innocent American soldiers, or so they say; and bomb-making companies gripe that they shouldn’t be criticized for selling weapons to overseas dictators since our government has authorized the sales—as if that somehow makes it the right thing to do. Claims like these are designed to encourage uncertainty and disagreement among the public over issues of right and wrong, and victim and perpetrator. When this turning of the tables is successful, our concern is directed away from those who actually suffer from our endless wars.

Note from Kathie MM: Tune in Wednesday for Part 3.

Forewarned is Forearmed: Get Ready for Political Mind Games in 2019. Part 2

Posted on by kathiemm
Image licensed under CCA-Share Alike 4.0 Internatl. Culture Jam activism sticker mentored by Avram Finkelstein, Center for Artistic Activism. Author: BettyTkao.

by Roy Eidelson

[One percenter mind games continued from December 26, 2018]

Distrust

“They’re Devious and Dishonest.”  From condemning labor activists to vilifying racial justice advocates, one-percenters will portray their adversaries as treacherous, devious, and evil in intent. With this mind game, they’ll encourage us to be suspicious and unsympathetic toward those who are facing difficult circumstances or insurmountable hardships. When this appeal works, we’re more likely to turn our backs on the victims of the self-aggrandizing rich and powerful.

“They’re Different from Us.” Whether they’re stigmatizing immigrant groups or progressive reformers, the 1% will describe those they deplore as unworthy of our trust, casting them as different and out of touch with what most Americans want. Whenever this deceitful ploy is successful, it leads potential allies to view each other as adversaries. In this way, natural coalitions that could develop among individuals and groups opposed to today’s plutocrats are squelched or destroyed.

“They’re Misguided and Misinformed.”  From the corruption on Wall Street to the further militarization of foreign policy, one-percenters will argue that their critics are misinformed and unreliable, and that their judgments are not to be trusted. Whenever we’re persuaded by such defensive appeals, we discount or entirely disregard important voices of dissent. Crucial opportunities for tackling inequality and advancing the common good are lost as a result.

“Trust Us.”  Whether it’s billionaire union-busters or lobby-backed politicians, the 1% will promote themselves as paragons of integrity. They know their efforts and policies will be much harder to counter if we mistakenly view them as trustworthy and selfless in word and deed. The weight of evidence doesn’t support this favorable image, but that reality doesn’t matter if we fail to recognize their devious misrepresentations, hollow promises, and corrupt enterprises.

Superiority

“They’re Losers.”  From reviling the homeless to disparaging the unemployed, today’s plutocrats will portray those who are down-and-out as inferior to the rest of us. With this mind game, they’ll encourage us to stand aloof from decent people who deserve our compassion and solidarity. And by boosting our own sense of self-worth, they’ll aim to discourage us from recognizing that the massive concentrations of wealth and power in this country reflect ruthless exploitation and unconscionable disregard of the needy.

“We’ve Earned It.”  Whether CEOs are defending their astronomical pay or claiming the mantle of indispensable job creators, one-percenters will fraudulently argue that they’ve earned everything they have through determination and fair play—and that they deserve our praise rather than criticism for their actions and choices. These assertions of superiority go hand in hand with the pursuit of ever greater dominance. As long as their self-glorifying narratives go uncontested, extreme inequality will remain a disturbing fixture of our society.

“Pursuing a Higher Purpose.”  From promoting inequality-boosting right-to-work legislation to defending human rights abuses, the 1% will insist that their actions embrace and protect the values we cherish. But prioritizing big-money interests subverts the vision of a nation of equal opportunity, where people from all walks of life join together for the common good. Despite this glaring contradiction, greed-driven appeals often succeed because they tap into our sense of pride over our country’s accomplishments and influence in the world.

“They’re Un-American.”  Whether they’re railing against desperate immigrants or kneeling football players, one-percenters will stoke intolerance by presenting their critics as inauthentic and unpatriotic Americans. They recognize that their rule will be jeopardized if unwelcome change-seekers gain broad support. So they’ll condemn those individuals and groups that refuse to silently accept hardship and mistreatment, characterizing them as ungrateful outsiders who fail to appreciate all that’s good about the United States.

Helplessness

“Change Is Impossible.”  From catastrophic climate change to inequality-boosting globalization, the 1% will insist that the world is shaped by forces much too powerful to be tamed by human intervention. Closer analysis, however, reveals that they lack the motivation—not the capacity—to exert influence over these disturbing phenomena. Indeed, even when they’re not the direct cause of others’ misery, too often they’re bystanders unwilling to use their enormous resources to benefit the common good.

“We’ll All Be Helpless.”  Whether they’re opposing gun reform measures or minimum wage hikes, one-percenters will warn us that changes will produce harmful repercussions that we’ll all be powerless to combat. The goal is to frighten us into accepting a status quo that serves their own interests but causes widespread damage to the public good. They hope that concerns about future helplessness will lead us to turn our backs on those suffering under the current system.

“Don’t Blame Us.”  From environmental disasters at home to reckless militarism overseas, the 1% will be quick to claim there’s nothing they could do when circumstances take a turn for the worse. Given their inordinate wealth and power, these cries of helplessness and blamelessness merit careful scrutiny. Although they strut the stage boasting about their purported talents and accomplishments, today’s plutocrats head for the shadows when it’s time to accept responsibility for their policy failures.

“Resistance Is Futile.”  Whether it’s protecting tax cuts for billionaires or flooding political campaigns with cash for future favors, the 1% will try to convince us that we’re helpless to wrest our lives and our country from their control. If we believe we’ll never succeed, our change efforts grind to a halt. But we should remember that one-percenters are susceptible to the disempowering effects of perceived helplessness too—if we can demonstrate our own collective power.

Resisting the 1%’s Mind Games

To reiterate: Any effective strategy for turning the tide on the 1% in 2019 depends upon countering and neutralizing these mind games. Concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness deserve to be important guides in policy debates and in efforts to advance the general welfare. But today’s plutocrats cunningly exploit these concerns solely for their own benefit, disregarding the harmful consequences that befall everyone else.

What, then, can we do? First, we should understand that the 1%’s mind games are much like a rampant virus that can infect unsuspecting people with false and democracy-endangering beliefs. Second, we should take the steps necessary to psychologically inoculate ourselves. That’s best accomplished by learning to recognize these flawed, manipulative appeals wherever they appear—in the media or in our neighborhoods—and by preparing forceful counter-arguments to them. And third, having become skilled “first responders,” we should organize others in our communities to do the same. The mission starts now.

Roy Eidelson, PhD, is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, and the author of the new book POLITICAL MIND GAMES: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible. His website is www.royeidelson.com and he’s on Twitter at @royeidelson. 

This article was originally published on Counterpunch at https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/20/get-ready-for-these-political-mind-games-in-2019/

Resisting the Mind Games of Donald Trump and the One Percent, Part 3

Posted on by kathiemm

Title page of The Golden Fleece by William Vaughan (1577-1641). 1626. In the public domain. Memorial University of Newfoundland website (and there is fleecing going on in the public domain today too). us-public-domain-tag

My last post shows how lies and manipulations have the country into a state of ever-growing fear and anger.  Unfortunately, without active resistance, the current crisis may go….

From Bad to Worse

To be clear, it certainly makes sense that our core concerns — about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness — should be front-and-center when it comes to thoughtful deliberations about matters of public policy and the common good. Meaningful, far-reaching progressive change requires nothing less. But it’s profoundly destructive — and deeply immoral — when these concerns are instead exploited in a manipulative and disingenuous manner to advance narrow interests that bring harm and suffering to so many. That’s the legacy of Trump’s successful presidential campaign. It’s also a disturbing preview of what we should expect from him and his administration going forward.

At the same time, we shouldn’t mistake Trump’s targeting of these concerns as unique. Indeed, back when he was known as just an ethically impaired real estate mogul and entertainer, other plutocracy-enabling leaders in both major parties were relying on similar psychological mind games: to block climate change initiatives (Senator James Inhofe in 2003: “Could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.”); to justify voter suppression tactics (Texas Governor Greg Abbott in 2006: “In Texas, an epidemic of voter fraud is harming the electoral process.”); to defend discriminatory law enforcement practices (former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on stop-and-frisk in 2014: “Every American has a right to walk down the street without getting mugged or killed.”); to oppose wage hikes (New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in 2012: “Here’s what’s going to happen — they’re going to have to lay people off.”); to preserve healthcare as a profiteer’s paradise (Senator Rand Paul on healthcare as a right in 2011: “I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery.”); to protect tax breaks for the super-rich (U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, on the estate tax in 2015: “The death tax is unfair and in conflict with the American Dream”); to turn public education over to greedy privatizers (former Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan on the 2010 premiere of a pro-charter school, anti-teachers’ union film: a “Rosa Parks moment”); and to galvanize support for deadly wars of choice (President George W. Bush in 2002: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”). Those are just a handful of examples.

In some ways, then, Trump’s move to Washington will simply reinvigorate a well-entrenched predatory agenda that already enriches the few at the expense of everyone else. But there’s also something that clearly makes him qualitatively worse than many other prevaricating one-percenters: he brings to the White House a toxic brew of bigotry, belligerence, and brutality. This has obvious and far-reaching significance. It means that those who are now disadvantaged — especially people of color and other marginalized groups — will face even tougher times ahead as scapegoating and misdirected hostility intensify.

But Resistance Isn’t Futile

There are avenues for withstanding and rebuffing the coming onslaught. The mind games used by Trump and others like him are primarily designed to mislead, to confuse, and, most importantly, to suppress broad opposition to extreme inequality and the withering of democracy. That’s why their worst nightmare is the formation of strong coalitions that bridge stubborn cultural, racial, religious, gender, and class divides. Building and nurturing these coalitions must therefore be a top priority. It’s an endeavor that will require unwavering support for those most immediately at risk and, simultaneously, a clear recognition of what we share in common: voices that have grown weaker, opportunities that have grown scarcer, and children whose futures have grown dimmer. In short, organized and unrelenting resistance will be a key element in obstructing the new administration’s calamitous ambitions.

It will be equally important to directly counter and debunk the President-Elect’s continuing barrage of duplicitous psychological appeals. During the election campaign, this effort proved inadequate. In part that’s because there was a widespread failure to fully appreciate the extent to which Trump’s false claims and assurances rang true for millions of disgruntled voters eager for change. Just as problematically, his final opponent was ill-suited to persuasively offer a compelling alternative narrative, one that would energize an electorate yearning for a candidate who’d take their fears, doubts, frustrations, and hopes seriously.

The 2016 election is over. Now it’s time to work together to make sure that Donald Trump’s hollow tales lose their luster and his self-aggrandizing motives are laid bare for all to see. In the weeks and months ahead, Americans of all stripes must come to realize that, through artifice and manipulation, super-sized hucksters have fleeced and betrayed the country and the people that made their staggering wealth and power possible.

Originally published in Counterpunch, December 22, 2016.  Reprinted with permission.

Roy Eidelson is a clinical psychologist and the president of Eidelson Consulting, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. He is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, former executive director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania, and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology. Roy can be reached by email at reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com and on Twitter @royeidelson.

More articles by:Roy Eidelson