Psychology Links, 3/5/2025

Ian Leslie on the personalities of great leaders; Rob Henderson on the online personality; Scott Alexander on political motivation; Rob Henderson on status ambiguity and conflict

Ian Leslie writes,

Trump is a political innovator: he flouts all the rules of politics, established over decades, yet he bestrides the political scene. He is “unbalanced”, a ranting obsessive who has been banging on about immigration and tariffs for over forty years. On any question, he makes his mind up quickly and is never swayed by evidence, counter-argument or emotional appeals. Like Musk and Milei, he does not seem to engage with other people as three-dimensional humans but, in his case, as characters in a TV show.

In fact, the crucial attribute shared by Milei, Musk and Trump - along with bottomless energy, idées fixe, and relentless will - is a lack of empathy. (It’s also true, to lesser or greater degrees, of successful leaders from the past, like Thatcher and De Gaulle.) Living in a closed-off mental world is not conducive to good relationships or to happiness, and it’s often a disadvantage in politics (and business). But in certain circumstances, an empathy deficit flips into being a superpower.

I contend that all modern political leaders, great or otherwise, are high in Dark Triad traits. They are narcissistic and manipulative. They are very low in the trait of honesty/humility. The political process selects for men with those characteristics.

Rob Henderson writes,

Remember that only 10% of people produce 80% of the content you see online. Within this 10% are people who have extreme personality types who are happy to forego genuine human connection in exchange for quick bursts of digital approval. Instead of responding with warmth, such people are happy to seize the moment to share a snarky post, promoting their online persona at the expense of basic courtesy. It’s also possible that such people do respond with warmth in the moment, only to mock the person later online. This is even worse.

Later,

A private person, one who doesn’t document their every move or convert their relationships into content, disrupts the system by refusing to participate.

Every aspect of life is dragged into the public domain. Social media platforms, reality TV, dating apps, OnlyFans, personal branding—everything is designed to make people more visible, more legible, and ultimately, more monetizable. A person who insists on keeping their thoughts, their relationships, or their emotions private is, in this framework, almost subversive. Their refusal to be consumed makes them unprofitable.

I think I disclose plenty on substack, but I try to maintain a zone of privacy. Possibly related: I am determined never to become someone who writes about their Twitter duels (“I said ___ and then so-and-so replied ___, etc.”). There is a saying that nobody wants to hear about your fantasy baseball team. The same applies to Twitter duels.

Scott Alexander writes,

People support political positions which make them feel good. On a primary level, this means:

• Successful people want to hear that they deserve their success.

• Unsuccessful people want to hear that successful people don’t deserve their success, lied / cheated / nepotismed their way to the top, and are no better than they are.

• People want to knock down anyone who makes a status claim to be better than them.

• People want to feel like their own identity group is heroic net contributors, and that their outgroup are villainous moochers.

He goes on to list other tribal feelings that motivate political positioning. As Robin Hanson puts it, “Politics is not about policy.”

Was there a time in the past when feelings mattered less and tangible objectives mattered more? I tend to think so. And I certainly think that nowadays more people care more about their political feelings than was typical in, say, 1955.

Alexander’s windup:

it’s hard to raise taxes on the rich without it seeming at least a little like “the rich should have less money”. But it seems like there should be ways to minimize this - you could even say explicitly “We like the rich and are happy to give them World’s Best Job Creator medallions in exchange for an extra 1% of their money, we just need some extra cash to fund government programs”.

That is, this theory predicts that a faction could vastly increase its chances of achieving its material goals just by making compromises on who it flatters vs. humiliates.

But it also predicts that nobody will try this in real life.

If the Democrats were to say things that make working-class voters feel good about themselves, the theory predicts that this would win votes. But the theory also predicts that the Democrats will continue to refer to working-class voters as a “basket of deplorables.”

Rob Henderson writes,

In the second year of my doctoral program I read an obscure book called Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity about Social Rank Breeds Conflict by the Yale sociologist, Roger V. Gould. The key idea of the book: Status ambiguity increases the likelihood of conflict. And when there is a clear and understood social hierarchy, conflict is less likely.

substacks referenced above:

@

What the Trump-Vance-Zelenskyy Altercation Reveals About Dominance Disputes

@

Why I Am Not A Conflict Theorist

@

Social Media Is Turning You Into an Informant

@

Why Are Some Of Our Most Successful Leaders Mentally Ill?