Dynamic Coalitions to Unmask the Emperors Above — Part 2

Recent Research on the Psychology of Authoritarianism and Some Theorizing About Psychological Parallels Between Groups and Nations

Look what you’ve done

I’m a motherfuckin’ starboy

The Weeknd’s Starboy contends with ego-magnifying, soul-crushing effects of stardom and having every material impulse satisfied

The psychology of authoritarianism — how such attitudes and voting preferences correlate with borderline-pathological features — has been illuminated by recent research.

The political horseshoe theory holds that extreme far-left and far-right ends of the political spectrum bear more in common to each other than they do more moderate positions. Recent research validates this wisdom, documenting problematic features linking far-right and far-left authoritarian psychology: mental rigidity aka close-mindedness, intolerance of opposing views, willingness to accept and engage in political violence and obsession with hierarchy. However, support for (versus opposition to) existing hierarchies separate the two. The researchers argue that authoritarianism is more fundamental to psychology than right-left ideology:

We found that ideology becomes secondary. Psychologically speaking, you’re an authoritarian first, and an ideologue only as it serves the power structure that you support.

Other recent research clarifies the problematic personality elements shared by left and right authoritarian personality types. The so-called dark triad of inter-related problematic personalities: narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism have recently been linked to authoritarianism in a convincing body of research.

The dark triad of antisocial personality (thanks to Marcia Desouza)

For example, a 2017 study concluded the dark triad traits all correlate with far right authoritarians while all but Machiavellianism correlate with with far left authoritarians. Another recent study found similar results, with authoritarian personalities linked to dark triad features, and also lower scores of agreeableness and emotional stability. A 2020 study found dark triad traits as well as a measure of entitlement predict 2 groupings of authoritarian attitudes: “authoritarian political correctness” as well as “White Identarianism” typical of the alt-right but not political correctness motivated by compassion. Yet another identified clusters of personality traits in US political groupings, identifying “dark Republican” and “dark Democrats” associated with dark triad features, high scores on measures of authoritarian personality, lower emotion recognition and lower emotional intelligence. Meanwhile, ‘normal’ Republicans and Democrats had lower dark triad features and healthier emotional styles. Taken together, these and several other studies represent a body of research demonstrating the key aspect of the political horseshoe: similarities between the far-right and far-left are based in the dark triad of antisocial patterns on the cusp of mental illness, all of which psychologically justify abuse and domination.

---

Theorizing on Healthy Human Group Dynamics

Nature’s basic social units, families, have forever been essential to raising children and therefore also thoroughly interwoven with personality development. As evolutionary teams in perpetual competition, nature has settled in on typical human family/tribe dynamics because they provide strength in their tendency to create differing and diverse personalities out of similar genetics.

It is tempting to think of raising children as mostly a deliberate exercise. But parents are most often not consciously in teaching mode and our kids are paying just as much attention to us and others at others times, probably more. Children learn, consciously and subconsciously, by watching. Emulating parents and others, children experiment with behaviors and social strategies. Parents and teachers promote behavior with rewards and encouragement and disincentivize behavior with punishments.

Probably more impactful, however, children learn from when parents, teachers and others avoid topics, exhibit inauthentic behavior, blindspots and irrationality, often subconsciously. As Carl Jung wrote:

Children have an almost uncanny instinct for the teacher's personal shortcomings. They know the false from the true far better than one likes to admit.

Critically also, children often find success and reward when they add value or reduce burden in a way that is harmonious with existing roles and values. That is, individuals staking out new turf within acceptable limits of the group is extremely valuable for the group’s functionality. And competition between siblings especially brings this to the forefront. Where older siblings fail or are criticized, younger siblings find opportunity. Where older kids succeed, younger ones may be less recognized for repeating the same successes and more likely to see roles as being already filled.

When children impress families and peer groups as they develop, positive reinforcement helps solidify usefulness into persona and identity. We generally seek to project successes, which become self re-enforcing and may solidify into personality. Similarly, we seek to reject failures and eventually self-regulate and reject behaviors and thoughts as outside of our character as we form identity. As stable personas emerge, individuals often stake out turf, so to speak, while also often sharing certain boundaries and foundations. That is, to best compete, healthy human family dynamics tend to promote groups with widely diverse strengths and personalities, united by a set of shared values, meaning and/or worldview.

---

Dominance Dynamics: Executive Function vs. Critical Reasoning

One aspect of character that embodies a large facet of these dynamics is our propensity for executive function versus critical reasoning. That is, propensity to act in the world as it exists versus propensity to analyze the world as it exists so as to change or improve it. This dualistic aspect of individual’s character is intimately tied also to attitudes about dominance and control, authority and hierarchy. It is not a binary feature, rather a spectrum, a critical axis of human character. One might even conceptualize this in more spiritual terms as tendency to prioritize the body or the soul, with the extremes neglecting or even hostile to one or the other.

Those who prioritize executive function (body) often were given opportunity to control decision-making early in their development, often by doting caregivers. Generally, these tends to be more dominant individuals: first-born and only children particularly ones in permissive or neglectful environments, males, those with incisive intellect, more wealthy, mechanically focused, and those with high opinions of themselves and abilities tend to fall into this camp.

Oppositely, those who prioritize critical reasoning (soul) often were not given (or did not take advantage of) opportunities to exercise control early in their development. So, these individuals more fully develop the mental processes surrounding analyzing justice and fairness while others call the shots. Generally, non-dominant individuals tend to fall into this camp, more often females, middle children, with more controlling caretakers or siblings, less wealthy, artistically-focused and those with lower confidence.

This axis of our character is not static after we reach adulthood but our early experiences tend to shape how we think fundamentally, ingraining the thought processes which become most developed and favored. Yet we are forever susceptible to being coaxed along this dimension and especially to its ugly extremes by abusive leadership or treatment. Abusive parenting, leadership or treatment embodies and often glamorizes sociopathy. This encourages antisocial tendencies either in loyalty or opposition to the abuse.

In our modern Western world, this axis of character is closely related to (but not exactly) our conceptions of political left vs right. This convention stems from one that formed during the French Revolution in 1789, where in the Assemblée Nationale, conservative loyalists to church and crown organized on the right side of the court and the revolutionaries seeking liberalization and egalitarianism on the left. Of course, politics and personality are both complex and messy with so many different issues and interests, not so cleanly cut-and-dried where one facet of character would wholly predict political choice. However, personality correlates with political choice as much as other critical factors. Research indicates the big five personality measures predict political preferences as strongly as other critical factors like income, race and education levels.

Today, this left-right political axis (and related character axis) is also closely related to our two-party politics in the USA. Democrats have settled in as left-wing, critical reasoning and justice oriented, seeking to progress past current power structures. Meanwhile, Republicans, right-wing, tend to prioritize executive action and immediate real-world functioning. Seeking to maintain efficiency and tradition, conservative Republicans generally seek continuation of existing hierarchies or to return to ones perceived to be naturally empowered.

Within our Liberal system, based in individual rights, democratic elections and separation of powers, there are strong protections against tyranny and abuse, though key functions like elite accountability to the law have been eroding for decades, since Iran Contra at least. Until Trump however, transparent criminality and deeply problematic personality were outside acceptable norms for US Presidential leadership. But since, his narcissistic leadership eroded shared national values. Meanwhile, that bullying leadership has pushed both ends of personality/political spectrum towards unhealthy extremes. Unfortunately, much extremism and authoritarianism now exist in both parties. Most dangerously, these attitudes dominate Republican party power and leadership.

---

Abuse/Grievance → Hate/Tribalism → Authoritarianism

Both executive function and critical thinking are essential elements of psyche and society, critical to individual and group functioning. Particularly in the natural world, groups need to get along to survive and to survive to get along, to compete with other groups, who would otherwise eat their lunch and displace them. So these functions must be synthesized and balanced for more healthy functioning.

If leadership allows unjust dynamics to pervade, those on the losing end of unfairness will be less motivated and empowered to succeed and leverage strengths for the group’s common interest. These are the unhealthy dynamics of authoritarian power structures as well as abusive families. Without a fair shot, individuals become embittered and motivated by little more than fear and force to carry out leadership‘s bidding. Those who are dominated/abused and those who prioritize justice will often instead seek to undermine and overtake abusive/authoritarian leadership wherever practical. Meanwhile, those who prioritize executive action may seek to join the team doling out abuse rather than be on the receiving end. Factions separate and faith in common cause erodes. Eventually, hate and willingness to resort to violence and domination emerges among citizens, which only justifies more heavy handed leadership to maintain order. This amounts to substantial inefficiency, why autocratic systems have generally lower potential than liberal ones.

The more blatantly abusive the power structure and unfair the dynamics, the fewer loyalists will be motivated to make the group succeed and enable continuation of the power structure.

This unhealthiness applies to the extremes on both ends. The extreme that focuses on forcing fairness at the expense of functionality eventually becomes abusive. When enforced fairness causes inefficiency, disorder and chaos, the results are often harmful and can even be horrendously deadly. In the extreme, such systems must be upheld by force and violence. This is especially unfair to those naturally positioned to thrive without such interventions. These dynamics underlie the unfairness of left wing authoritarianism like under communism.

Making a Monster

Demonstrating these ugly dynamics while calling attention to her uncle Donald’s pathologies, clinical psychologist Mary Trump went public with her accounts of her father and uncle’s unfortunate rearing. In Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man, Mary blames sociopathic parenting from Fred Sr. for her father Freddie’s alcoholism and her uncle Donald’s deeply insecure, beyond-narcissistic personality:

The only reason Donald escaped the same fate is that his personality served his father's purpose. That's what sociopaths do: They co-opt others and use them toward their own ends — ruthlessly and efficiently, with no tolerance for dissent or resistance…

Fred destroyed Donald, too, but not by snuffing him out as he did Freddy; instead, he short-circuited Donald's ability to develop and experience the entire spectrum of human emotion. By limiting Donald's access to his own feelings and rendering many of them unacceptable, Fred perverted his son's perception of the world and damaged his ability to live in it…

Softness was unthinkable…

Every one of Donald's transgressions became an audition for his father's favor, as if he were saying, 'See, dad, I'm the tough one. I'm the killer…

Nothing is ever enough. This is far beyond garden-variety narcissism; Donald is not simply weak, his ego is a fragile thing that must be bolstered every moment because he knows deep down that he is nothing of what he claims to be

More healthy and functional leadership and parenting tends to find balance - a ‘middle path’ of competency informed by, but not paralyzed by pursuit of fairness and equality. Fair treatment, rules and enforcement foster equality of opportunity and dignity, which motivate and moderate more individuals. Enabling fair competition where the best performers are most rewarded and empowered, meritocracy thrives in maximizing allocation of resources, roles and decision-making for best overall group performance. These are the same healthy, noble dynamics that our Western Liberal power structures strive to foster, however imperfect and corrupted these are today.

Up Next:

The 3rd and final section of the chapter, where I identify and flesh out some of the most important players among the Emperor-Oligarch mob threatening global freedom and security as well as decent defenders of truth and Western Liberality.

Dynamic Coalitions to Unmask the Emperors Above - Part 3/3