Slashdot Mirror
If Humble People Make the Best Leaders, Why Do We Fall for Charismatic Narcissists? (hbr.org)
Numerous studies and real-life examples show humble, unassuming people as leaders improve the performance of a company in the long run. The humity, exuded by these leaders, can be contagious. Yet, instead of following the lead of these unsung heroes, an article on Harvard Business Review argues, we appear hardwired to search for people who exude charisma. The article looks into why such is the case: One study suggests that despite being perceived as arrogant, narcissistic individuals radiate "an image of a prototypically effective leader." Narcissistic leaders know how to draw attention toward themselves. They enjoy the visibility. It takes time for people to see that these early signals of competence are not later realized, and that a leader's narcissism reduces the exchange of information among team members and often negatively affects group performance. It's not that charismatic and narcissistic people can't ever make good leaders. In some circumstances, they can. For example, one study found that narcissistic CEOs "favor bold actions that attract attention, resulting in big wins or big losses." A narcissistic leader thus can represent a high-risk, high-reward proposition.
Many analyses fall short because they assume that we think these things through logically. On the contrary, this is an area in which hardwired instincts in the lower, more primitive parts of our brains take over almost completely. And one of the most fascinating things about human beings is how very clever people can be completely sure they are doing something for logical reasons, when in fact they are being driven by blind instinct. (Dr Freud was onto that fact with regard, mostly, to sex; and Dr Adler with regard to power).
Homo sapiens evolved over at least two million years as a hunter-gatherer, living in groups ranging probably from family-sized to a maximum of perhaps 200 - possibly depending on the density of food sources. Such small groups would be critically dependent on effective and experienced command. Just like other land animals that live in herds, packs or prides, human beings instinctively recognize the vital necessity of social structure in the form of a well-defined pecking order and a universally accepted leader (alpha male or female). It's far better to have a relatively poor but generally accepted leader than no leader, when the group may break up or even start fighting each other. In that case they probably all die, and all their genes are lost.
So one of history's observations - that people are often very willing to greet and cheer a "man on a white horse" - shouldn't be so surprising at all. And the converse of accepting and supporting the leader is usually hating and fearing outsiders. Unfortunately, this is one of many respects in which our ancient instincts, which served us well as hunter-gatherers, are now extremely counter-survival. (Although it's not at all clear that there is any good solution to the problem of governing human societies larger than a few thousand).
Here is a good essay on a related topic: http://fredoneverything.org/th...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
There's some truth to this. But on this last election cycle, Bernie is probably pretty close to a the humble side, not the wacko side of the scale. If the dem's handn't shot him down and let him win. I don't think we'd have trump in the big house.
There are a very large number of people out there that don't want a bunch of gangsters like the clintons in office.
I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong
The appearance of competence is not the same as actual competence.
Actual competence is difficult to assess when the outcome measures are subjective.
Incompetent yet successful people are more likely to be proficient at masking their incompetence through lying and psychopathic manipulation.
Because we're idiots.
No we're not, we're just ignorant. The charismatic narcissists tell a good story, they tell us they can fix it, they tell us they understand what's wrong, they relate well to us to the point we think they also see what we see and they can fix it. That's politics, but these same people succeed in business to for the same reason, except they merely need to swindle a considerably smaller group of people.
The guy who tells the truth, that we have bad problems and they may not be entirely fixable, or that the middle class must necessarily bear the lions share of the tax burden, or that many of our perceived problems are more about not making the huge profits from WWII reparations that our parents benefitted from, and instead having huge debt from various police actions since then which we shouldered the costs for, that while there is a better way to live our country is largely ruled by a small group of wealthy self-interested pricks that we cannot effectively stop all at once, but must work collectively, both nationally and internationally to ensure they such people do not have a place on earth in the future.
Do you want to vote for that guy? He's probably right, but his story is depressing and he's telling us uncomfortable things.
Nah, we're stupid.
Millions of people play the lottery, thinking "somebody has to win!" while completely ignoring the fact that the lottery companies make huge profits.
Ditto casinos: If the wallpaper is gold, there's free drinks and the croupiers are earning wages then you think you're going to win some money in that room? Really....?
All a politician has to do is sell a bigger dream than the other politicians. There's enough stupid around that they'll eventually win.
Somebody does win the lottery (other than the lotto companies). It MIGHT be me, assuming I don't get hit by lightning before then (yeah, I know the odds are higher for the lightning - and it's sunny this week!).
And I have won at the casino, sometimes good amounts. Though, my losings certainly contributed to their gold wallpaper, but it's not much worse than other forms of entertainment. I never thought I'd quit my day job. :p
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
There's another factor you're failing to consider. While it'd be nice if we could spend years researching every topic before making a decision, frequently (and arguably the majority of the time) that is simply not an option. There's value in how quickly a decision can be made. Often, a mediocre quick decision can yield a better outcome than a well-researched, well thought-out decision which takes months or years to arrive at. This is why militaries organize themselves into ranks and chains of command - because in combat, the situation changes so quickly that if you spend hours or sometimes even minutes trying to completely understand the it, your conclusions will be obsolete by the time you reach them. You have to make a decision quickly based on the incomplete and imperfect information you have at that moment.
That's why people are attracted to charismatic and confident leaders - because their ability to make quick decisions frequently has value. And once a decision has been made you can only compare to a hypothetical (what if a different decision had been made?). And confidence is great at swaying people away from thinking the hypothetical is better than the reality.
You're actually using a classic coping mechanism for those not on the winning side of a decision - denigrating the decision maker by claiming this quick-decision process does not scale up at all. It scales up just fine. It's just that as you scale up, the number of decisions which need to be made increases. So even though the percentage of decisions which are better served by well thought-out research remains the same, the number of them also increases.
If we really want to progress as a species, we have to avoid falling for either extreme of this argument. Certain decisions are better made quickly, even if there's incomplete or imperfect information. Other decisions can wait and are better if made after careful and thorough research. Both methods have merit. The test of our intelligence is whether we recognize them and treat them appropriately. Or whether we'll blithely apply a one-size-fits-all decision-making strategy just because we happen to like or dislike charismatic people.
He then proceeded to dismantle the healthcare system with the blessing of his voters despite the fact that millions of people are killed by curable illness every single year.
This comment proves that people can be quite ignorant. I am sure that Joce640k is a very intelligent person, but this statement is just plain dumb. Last I checked, Obamacare is still the law. In fact Trump and the Republican leadership can't seem to even convince their own party on how to replace this it, even though that a main reason many of them won their election.
Logic would then tell you that the millions of people killed by curable illness are actually the fault of Obamacare at this point in Trump's term. Once he gets his changes made, then you will be free to place blame where it is due.
We're wired to be hunter-gatherers; small and generally fairly mobile groups where leaders were far closer to those that they lead.
While I'm sure you're right about some of this, I think perhaps an even bigger effect is reinforcement through social norms. What are the "myths" of our modern societies? When we tell stories of "heroes," what are they like?
And from fairy tales and fables through our modern blockbuster movies, we tend to emphasize the powerful, charismatic leader who takes risks, instead of the quiet, stable dude who actually gets stuff done day-to-day without seeking the limelight.
Sure, we get the occasional "inspirational" story of the humble, quiet dude who finally gets recognition after laboring in obscurity for decades. But most of the "humble" types we see in fiction only become main characters when they start to act in unusual ways that bring attention, perhaps even becoming literal "superheroes" in much recent fiction. The standard superhero trope of the quiet guy who evolves special powers to save humanity is perhaps the ultimate beta-male fantasy: you skip all the social factors, physical prowess, etc. that get you attention and power and instead just are granted the power directly.
Part of this is the nature of drama, too. Do we really want to read a book or see a movie about a guy who labored steadily in his office for 40 years and contributed to the company through all his quiet deeds? Or do we want to hear the guy make speeches, and have high-profile successes (and failures), and have "drama" as he works his way up?
Even our news is shaped this way. It's a major factor in Trump's success. He clearly managed to get "free publicity" from news organizations most days during his election. Whether you liked him or hated him, he knew how to draw people's attention (both good and bad).
Humble people just don't tend to draw that sort of attention -- not in our fiction, not in the news, etc. The closest we get is the occasional story about the value of "introverts" or whatever, but it's not enough. Until our dominant culture celebrates the humble folks in stories, in our news, etc. and acknowledges their superior results on a regular basis, there's no way they'll be valued as much.
Trump sold the voters on the danger of ISIS and Islam when in reality only a tiny fraction of a percent of the population has ever been killed by them.
He then proceeded to dismantle the healthcare system with the blessing of his voters despite the fact that millions of people are killed by curable illness every single year.
I agree with you.
Leftists sold the voters on the danger of owning firearms when in reality only a tiny fraction of a percent of the population has ever been killed by them-- and even those are almost entirely gangsters anyway.
They then proceeded to institute a more and more socialist system that keeps blacks in the ghetto, fetuses in the mass graves (or sold off for experiments), and drowns the country in debt... leading, of course, to destabilization, revolution, and millions dying (just like the previous century).
Would you agree with me that the solution is to institute a "smaller" / more restricted government?
If you agree with that then perhaps we can both agree to vote for a libertarian (or Rand Paul or someone along those lines) in the next election.