Let’s revisit the notion that the widespread misery and shattered dreams associated with today’s extreme inequality can be overcome by following the lead of the one-percent. Clearly, the deeply-entrenched Dark Triad tendencies among the super-rich should caution us against taking this path. After all, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism aren’t the qualities one looks for in a reliable and trustworthy guide.
At the same time, it’s important to recognize
two countervailing considerations. First, not everyone who’s exceedingly
wealthy displays this disturbing trio of psychological traits, or routinely
engages in the antisocial behaviors associated with them. Second, there’s
obviously no requirement that you have to be rich in order to be an obnoxious
narcissist who lacks compassion and exploits other people.
But these caveats don’t alter the fundamental
reality: there are members of the one-percent who do act upon their Dark Triad
inclinations and impulses. That’s a serious problem because their extraordinary
wealth gives them tremendous influence over our laws, our politics, and our public square — and they’re eager
and able to use their power and resources to pursue a self-serving agenda at
the expense of the common good.
Psychology matters in another way as well. As
part of their efforts, these one-percenters use an assortment of psychological
appeals to mislead us about
what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible. These manipulative “mind
games” include a wide range of deceptive claims: change is dangerous; concerns
over inequality are overblown; hard times hit those who don’t measure up; the
wealthy are the ones being mistreated; critics of the super-rich are misguided
and misinformed; the wealthy deserve the public’s trust; one-percenters have
earned their enormous wealth and power; critics of the billionaire class are
un-American; change is impossible; and the one-percent aren’t to blame for
society’s problems. Debunking these and similar appeals — and inoculating
ourselves and others against them — is therefore a necessary step in
successfully challenging a status quo that prioritizes the few over the many.
There’s a popular account, perhaps fictitious, about an exchange between writers F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway. Fitzgerald purportedly wrote, “The rich are different from you and me” — and Hemingway replied, “Yes, they have more money.” Some members of the billionaire class would like us to believe it’s really that simple. But it appears the truth may actually be much darker.
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….
Battle_of_Giannitsa_(1912-11-01),_First_Balkan_War,_Greece; published in the US before 1923 and public domain in the US.
Part 2 in a two-part series by Dr. Majed Ashy
Leaders can use their power and authority for good or bad. Unfortunately, some leaders promote moral disengagement by persuading the masses that the crimes of wars and terrorism are, among other things, essential, unavoidable, victimless, ways of preventing more evil, fully the responsibility of the other side, and will be the last war or act necessary to create peace.
The foot soldiers who carry out the fighting are led to believe that they are fighting for their country, race, religion, sect, tribe, peace, or whatever they are told the conflict is about—which may be something quite different from what they are told. For example, while spewing out rhetoric about patriotism and loyalty and faith, the leaders might actually be fighting over natural resources such as natural gas, gas pipelines routes, mines, or oil, drugs or drug smuggling routes, money, influence over their own people, regionally, or internationally. Or they may be seeking to obtain the votes of extremists in their group. Or they may be pursuing violence just to satisfy their own narcissistic needs or psychopathology.
On the other hand, the relationship between the leader and the masses can contribute to a lot of good. The grip of war and terror mongering leaders on ordinary people needs to be shaken, their intentions and motives need to be examined, and their strategies to manipulate and mobilize the masses and to fuel the conflicts need to be exposed and countered. The relationship between such leaders and the ordinary people in their domains are the main origin of all international and local wars and ills.
Such leaders have sometimes been deposed or convinced to end their love affairs with violence in the past, and this can happen again. The enforcement of the Hague and international law might convince some of these leaders to accept alternatives to violence and change the nature of their relationship with their people or followers.
