No. Even without a test it's pretty obvious that some people are toxic. And yet the crowd gives them the role. Therefore, tests are useless because the answer is already known. The question is why no-one cares about the obvious.
*Another issue:* The exact people suited for the job are the exact people most likely to hold themselves accountable or feel bothered by their failures. This means that they're more likely to resign from their position in shame, when in reality, their mistake was probably worth working past and sticking things out. This creates a scenario where the best-suited personalities are likely to be driven away from power precisely because they understand the burden of responsibility, whilst those looking to exploit it for personal gain will seek it. Even IF we screen for the worst traits, we'd probably still end up with non-ideal leaders off that alone.
Assuming an individualistic viewpoint. If you look at group dynamics then you'll see that they tend to sort these things out by themselves. It is rather the attempt of regulation that prevents that and enables people to claim and hold positions that they don't fit in because the regulation doesn't allow the flexibility necessary for change.
This is a problem that should be addressed and discussed in order to further validate and amend this process because imo if this can be pulled off right, it will be a game changer. I also did mention the introduction of a 4th Governmental Body that can check and balance the other 3, but is a compulsory body made up of everyday people, something similar to a jury, except that it's a jury that judges and regulates the Government. There's more to it, but that's the concept in a nutshell.
WRONG, UNCOMPLETE. Their seats would be freed, yes, but for somme immensly helpful and competent "utopist" altruists who, currently, are unemployed and have always been belitteled and depressive because of these narcisstic 'realists' - who, if becoming unemployed 'to' the (public payd) sectors.. would not constitute a societal problem (be a least financial burden) - largely compensated for by EQ at the commands.
Testing for evil is tricky. People with no empathy lie and are extremely manipulative. They lead double lives, fooling and threatening everyone. Thank you for making this video. I’ve been wanting it for a long time. This can’t be discussed enough. Test all officials, including all agencies and service limits are a necessity.
Yeah how would you even test an intelligent psychopath when they know they are being tested? I think most of them could find answers that don't reveal their true colours.
I couldn't agree more. Maybe the reason we don't have psych tests for those in the highest positions of power, is because those already in the highest seats of power know that implementing anything of the sort would negatively affect them, therefore such filters are never introduced. The question then is, how do we get such tests introduced?
This is a free country. The people (not the House) can organize and write laws just like Congress and pass them with a vote (see referendum), where the people vote before Congress ever has a chance to discuss the referendum results. Congress will resist, of course, but with an overwhelming majority, they can't. To not concede to the people would be to admit this nation is not a democracy. But we the people might run into a constitutional issue. If we act in lieu of Congress, the new law would still have to receive presidential approval. Again, it will seem like an authoritarian state if the President does not sign our bill into law. If it gets presidential approval (or not), it will establish a new legal precedent. The people who vote for the bill will be called traitors, and the leaders behind the bill will have to face a lot of pressure. And there are a few states in the United States that do not allow for citizen-initiated referendums. These states include Delaware, Indiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The question is - who would be willing to take the lead in advocating for the bill?
The problem with such a test - any type of test that is intended to weed out the worst person for the job for that matter - is that those who control the administration of that test, will inevitably control power.
Exactly. Which is why the only way to reduce the abuse of power is to spread power and responsibility instead of centralising power more which inevitably leads to abuse.
They would have to show the public that the test indicates the traits it is supposed to indicate. We have tests now-one of them whether they graduated college. Another is whether they committed a felony. In both cases, someone could be a good leader without passing the test, but more often, drawing leaders from the pool of college graduates with no felony convictions will result in better leadership overall.
Not even the biggest problem regarding testing imo, but how would you even test someone for the dark triad? Smart psychopaths can easily figure out what the purpose of a question is and how to respond in a manner that doesn't show their true colours. Especially if they know they are being tested, that is why their true identity only comes to light when they have already gained power.
This is one of the most important videos on youtube imo.The problem of psychopaths in power is arguably the leading cause of suffering in not only the US, but many other countries as well. If people in power actually cared about the people, instead of dividing and conquering with their fear propaganda and profit-at-any-cost motives, lives would improve dramatically and many lives would be saved.
Yes. Most people who land a professional position are expected to meet qualifications involving education and experience; possibly a personality profile, psych eval, or whatever else the organization requires to establish their fitness for the position. It has baffled (and horrified) me that apparently the same minimum criteria are not required of high-ranking leaders! Especially in government.
Most professional leaders don’t have to take any psych tests. In the corporate world, the most engaging and charismatic tend to rise to the top. We are all beholden to whoever has the most charisma instead of who has the most aptitude.
I think high-ranking leaders can easily pass a psych test, especially considering they have power, money and intelligence, which allows them to access the necessary training to pass those tests.
You'd be surprised. Psychopaths have no direct experience actually feeling empathy, and have trouble faking it. A paradigmatic case is a Spanish lawyer years ago who attempted to frame a man who had recently been released from prison. She tried to frame him for the sexual assault and murder of her adopted daughter. She was very thorough, used privileged information to get access to the guy's DNA, and when she and her husband murdered the girl they planted a trail of evidence pointing to this man, who had a violent criminal record and who they had every reason to believe would never have more credibility than two wealthy lawyers. One piece of evidence they left was a story that one night she had discovered a man in the daughter's room who had climbed in through the window and then fled when she entered, after which she became so scared that she left town for a few days. Asked why she didn't contact police, she replied that she just hoped that he wouldn't come back. She was arrested as a suspect shortly thereafter. No normal mother would not call the police in that situation, or leave for only a 'few days' only to come back and leave her daughter alone and unsupervised in the same house and town. She could plant evidence, but she had no idea how to simulate believable emotional reactions in the scenarios she invented. The first time she cried was in jail, when she realized she was busted.
I managed HR for a successful startup and watched one particular founder recruit, use, abuse, and discard countless people - damaging their careers and likely their psyche in the process. Unfortunately, I include myself in that list. Having to work closely with this individual for years was likely similar to living in a family with an abusive head of household
Isn't that the goal of HR in general? Hire the best for the job for the least amount of money, use and abuse them to get the job done and then throw them away the second you don't need them anymore or they get burned out.
@@silotx That's the goal of management or whoever has an allocated budget for the department/employees they manage and are expected to stay within. As a whole, HR will exist along a spectrum as far as how employee-focused or evil/hand-in-hand/subservient to management they are. It partially depends on the people who are in HR leadership, but mostly on the Operations and Management leadership of the organization (since they can fire HR leadership and replace them with someone more willing to fall in line). Unless your experience is formed by a bad HR leader, I would guess that your quarrel is directly with management or management using HR as a tool to accomplish some of their dirty work
He made use of them as needed & disposed of them as needed. Hence why they were a 'successful' startup. The workers who justified their position through ability likely ensured that they weren't disposed of so readily. The world's a cold place. Boohoo.
That would fail for the same reason as the test. Schools & places of training are not free of corruption, either. Psychopaths are capable of taking over an entire school & replacing all the teachers with people who can push their agenda.
You're missing the point, psych's adapt and live within general masses. And as the comment above stated, at that point people will only learn to distrust everyone and cooperation would be extremely challenging.
Not even the best profesional psychologist can diagnose psychopathy with any reasonable certainty from televise debates or things like that. It requires you to actually put the work in.
Oh man, there is so much truth here. As a former computer consultant and business owner, I worked in corporations and within government at the municipal, provincial and federal government and I watched narcissism and more around me all the time. And worse still, due to all the protections within these organizations (particularly government) such as unions and the golden handcuffs of pensions and other aspects … the only way you could get rid of someone with an unhealthy mindset was to PROMOTE them out of your area vs fire them. I see it ALL the time here in BC and makes me sick to my stomach. So, often, the worst people escaped a scene they created (leaving a mess behind), got a raise (amplifying their ego and validating their actions) but also took their BS with them to a bigger position. And what happens next? Shit rolls downhill… Loved this so much. Thank you. 🧡🐳
The title alone brought such a smile to my face. Anyone with a position of power, position to teach children, public office, police, should all be psych tested. "With great power comes great responsibility."
Power also in of itself isn’t bad, power just means the ability to act or change. The issue is that power is often centralized in the hands of a few which means they have a disproportionate amount over others which of course will allow them to implement things which benefit them!
1.000% Agree (1,000 I mean): it's hell about time that this kind of Ethical question is systematically addressed in our societies; 'otherwise it won't do' (there's a curious Japanese main expression for this: "-shinakereba narimasen". Even though it's unlikely to happen of a sudden everywhere, there should be some fields in which these new ways of dealing with this problematic could be implemented, as fundamental starting points.
The problem underneath all of this is that we are a sick society producing sick people. To fix this we need a global shift, I see more and more people working on themselves and raising healthier children but it's a slow process and I'm not too optimistic because I think we are in a really bad place and would need a big change like yesterday.
In theory, the idea of a psychological test for positions of power sounds great. But, as Robert Hare, who committed his research to psychopathy and invented the 'Psychopathy Checklist', stated in his book 'Without Conscience', psychopaths, at least the smart ones, are extremely skilled in manipulating and playing people - even psychologists. They'll know exactly what you want to hear and it takes years of practise to detect the traits correctly. And if the psychopath made it this far he will know how to play the game. Also psychopaths are not all necessarily impulsive. The literature suggests there are actually two types: type 1 is the callous/strategic psychopath who will more likely rise to power as he is goal oriented and strategic, type 2 is the impulsive or histrionic one who will end up more likely in prison than C-Level. Both are narcissistic, but just type 1 is machivellistic.
I have a degree in psychology, and we were taught these sophisticated tests can discern a fraud; these test creators are not dummies functioning in the dark: They've been at this task for many decades. We desperately need to know more about who we're giving the keys to the kingdom to. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., would have washed out quickly. This idea needs to become reality, but will it? I don't know. Your guess is as good as mine.
I dont think when they say 'test' they mean just 'a test'. You are correct though that is a possibility - it has to be totally rigirous. I was about to say that there should be a number of people selected that 'know' the applicant going for the power position to be interviewed.. but then that might not stop the applicant bribing those people to say good things about them. Basically, the procedure for vetting has to be thoroughly thought out with a diverse of psychological, legal and political experts.
A lack of empathy for others usually results in a singular drive to "succeed" - most often at the expense of said others. So whatever psychological variables are involved it still boils down to what society deems as supposed "success". We as a culture reward the acquisition of wealth and power. This means we therefore will often look the other way at how it was achieved to rationalize its purported end results rather than the path it took to get there. Many - but not all - "successful" people actually have sociopathic tendencies if one was honest. 🤨
Precisely. Those that aren't concerned with fantasy-scenario things like "morals" or whatever are free to focus purely on the concrete & material. On success. And their clarity of mind makes them a sharp threat to those around them, the "incapables". Also, it has nothing to do with what society "deems" successful; all organisms pursue the further acquisition of resources (IE. the gathering of wealth, gaining of power). Squirrel's hoard nuts, Lion's fight off their own family so they can have a greater share of the meat, etc. it has nothing to do with "society". Weaklings & losers tell themselves humans only value power & wealth due to conditioning because it provides them a convenient excuse for why they aren't a complete failure at life. "Just because I've failed to amass wealth & power doesn't mean I'm a loser, those things don't decide success! That's just what society decided!!" is the perfect example of "Whatever helps you sleep at night".
To quote Frank Herbert from his book, Chapterhouse: Dune “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
You could add; if someone picks up the responsibility for millions of people, how can that person be rewarded to keep in line with his/her function? Mf's stuff themselves for their imagined suffering or are born into a life of leisure, prolonging it into politics.
Hi Brain, Great video - again! Paul Babiak has done some of the research you probably read getting your Ph.D. He and Robert Hare have suggested interviewing those subordinate to folks moving up the corporate ladder (or similar) to assess the likelihood of psychopathic traits. This approach should foil any attempt of the psychopath to manipulate the outcome of testing.
The question i've been wondering for so long. Thanks for this answer. May those evil leaders get what they deserve because we can never ever stop those bastards from rising to power. That is just the way it is.
100% This!!!! Yes, yes, yes! -- Also, psychopaths are very cool and collected in times of high stress. That is why many good brain surgeons are also psychopaths. They are able to get the job done with very little stress due to their lack of empathy for others.
if we started psychologically testing leaders, they would just figure out how to game the system. If the methods to identify test takers that are trying to game the system with their answers can be fooled (in a written or verbal test). I think having public debates and interviews, and looking at a leaders track record (and interview people who know them from childhood through adulthood is the best method of screening we have). As for CEO's of companies, when are people going to realize they aren't there to protect the environment, employ citzens of the country they are from, or provide some other social benefit. They are there to make profits for their Board of Directors, other Executives of the Company and the Investor (that is literally their job is to do this), and that is why in America they can legally fire American employees and move those jobs to other countries so they can pay the workers a lot less money, and not have to pay them health insurance benefits/401K (making more profits for investors and themselves). As for political leaders that is a whole different story, except the area that is totally corrupted is in Washington DC you have corporate industry lobby groups that influence politicians (including with employment laws, corporate oversight/regulations, etc.) If I wanted to *fix* the system I would start with outlawing lobby groups, and then I would increase the penalties for politicians corrupt behavior (that includes them making millions in the stock market and getting high paying jobs for themselves/family/friends when they leave political office, they need to create a special department to go after corrupt politicians, because whoever is handle this now, they are not doing their job, they only go after certain people like Donald Trump, and that is because he upset the political powers in DC, it is selective prosecution.
that s why the list of potential people you can vote for , for any given position, should not include people who **want** to be, but just a general list of people who have the necessary knowledge and skill background to not make a complete mess. because generally, people who doesn't wish to be in power tend to be people responsible enough to know the responsibilities that come with power. while the ones who want power tend to see power as a toy, and not as a mighty but potentially dangerous tool.
I am glad people are finally discussing this stuff as a key variable in human management on every scale. But the solution is not psych evals all around. The real problems are enforcement of dismissal and replacement, blackmail, misdiagnosis, bureaucratic infighting, extortion. Leaders can be evaluated by their results without resorting to psych evals and inevitable silo mentality regardless of their good or bad outcomes (fire type Xs even if they do a good job; retain type Y screwups because their psych eval is negative for key traits).
I've been saying this for decades. It's about time to hear this from someone who matters. Also, thank you for using a thumbnail of a popular psychopath in American government. This really helps drive home the point.
Yass! 500% true - not only leaders - teachers, cops, and Ärzte, too. And there are many more people exploiting there positions as persons of authority, hurting other people and the system.🤷♀️
Good question. And I feel that the answer should always be "Once that the organization has become sufficiently self-governing, I am not needed in power anymore."
the problem with tests is an intelligent person/psychopath can figure them out and can also be the most charming person around. You'd need to look deeper into their background, at their relationships.
That is technically taken from current law though. A president can be declared unfit to govern and removed. I believe it's referred to as the "no confidence" vote on most anglo speaking countries. But it's not the point of this video.
Some of the same traits, when NOT taken to the extreme, are what is needed to be a leader. For example, excessinve emotionality can be very unhelpful in making decisions in many situations. A balance is needed. If they could find a way to test to determine levels, that would be more helpful. Someone else in the comments did bring up the fact that the candidates were to be tested, people would likely try to game the system (perhaps with corroboration with those administering the tests if there is corruption) and I think this would be a concern.
Good points. Also it must be said the average person is very unstrategic. This doesn’t guarantee authenticity or innocence at all. Being strategic is good but it is also facile to suggest someone who is good isn’t able to game a system. It is also inaccurate to suggest I think people who currently feel disenfranchised and undervalued, that they wouldn’t do the exact same thing if they were in the position of powerful people. Being underpowered currently doesn’t mean they’re good people. In fact, in democracies (discounting for weird election result systems), it’s sometimes the people who vote for ridiculous leaders. Awareness. Is the key.
@xxf No, it should be a pre-elimination test as a whole. And it fits into what he is describing. A leader should be able to explain what his main purpose is, and if he is true to that mission, then he should step down after the completion of his mission.
This sentiment was already clear two millenia ago and outlined by Plato in his Republic dialogue. So this idea is far from being new, but for some reason (like elites being self-sealing and tremendously good at gatekeeping) we still did not get the hang of it. I can hardly think of more then two or three leaders in the last century that actually qualify.
I don't trust the phrase "power corrupts". Power doesn't do the corrupting. It's a choice, and people choose corruption and then claim "power made me do it".
That's what most people believe when they claim more power. Until they get corrupted and are confronted with how little they are actually able to choose. It's easy to believe we are in control but once you are confronted with real power... Reality will tell you a lot about that.
While I do agree that it is a choice in the moment, it's the power that sets them up to make those choices. Which is why the phrase isn't "power forces people to make corrupt choices"
I've learned from exploring "top popular characters" from all sort of fictionnal media, be it movies, animes, books etc... That even in fictional stories, people are very seduced by psychopaths, their seductive power is so high, that even a created character with those traits will be worshipped by a large part of the population, it's absolutely scary. We probably culturally elevated the idea of someone who can take great risks at the expense of everyone in some way or another, maybe we should assess the fact that we all have a responsibility in it. We don't appreciate nice people as much as we appreciate people who are extravagant.
Now, add to that that corporations and other organizations taken on their own attributes as any entity does. Ironic that they are now recognized as “ individuals “ with rights…yet we don’t seem capable of holding them responsible and liable as we would an individual…further, the individual members of such powerful entities plead that they are powerless to change the “ culture” of these most powerful entities!
High empathy people care about others and burn out because of it. Want to be a successful lawyer? Much easier if your clients bad choices don't bother you, and you maximize the benefit to you instead of the client without regret. This describes all successful financial planners, politicians, CEO's and used ar dealers.
That's not entirely correct though. We don't live in a vacuum. People can spot narcissists quite well, the problem isn't detection it's dependency. In most cases people with no empathy don't get very far because they can't function socially. Most people you consider to be narcissistic are just cold hearted but capable of learning. True narcissists get spotted eventually and removed by their social environment in most cases.
I think you're both right. The narcissist will be phased out of his personal relationships but not the sporadic ones like business relationships of a salesmen etc. I don't think either situation is all inclusive and there's a lot of nuance to each situation.
I like the idea of psychological testing of people on positions of power but we also need psychological controls over the people giving that psychological testing too- keeping things in balance
how would you ensure people answer truthfully or figure out who is not though? for a smart person it would be easy to learn what the "right" answers would be or what would be expected of them.. you mentioned yourself that narcissistic persons tend to be attuned to what others think of them and get them to like them, machiavellian persons have a very strategic mindset..
Nature has designed the paths to power in such a way that only people with dark personality traits can progress quickly on them and obtain power. And power it's is so fragile to maintain that only people with even darker personality traits can remain in power.
It's been 3 years since I tried DMT, can't find a plug anywhere in my area. Back then, We used one of those vaporizers with the big bags. The first time I didn't do enough and I just seen shapes and colours. But the second time I managed to get another hit in before I got the light headed. I remember floating above the country side flying and then all of a sudden I zoomed down into a deer and went right inside of it and I was the veins and the blood and flowing through this deers body. It was very strange lol
The only negative about this video is it's too short. Most vids on RUclips should be 5 minutes because of short attention spans, but this is one of those rare kinds that could extend it to 18 minutes and I would watch the entire thing.
I'd be all for this with one caveat. Systems must be put in place to prevent the psychologists from becoming the ones who ultimately decide if someone should be in power, because otherwise all you've done is just move the deciding body from the electorate to the psychologists. And given how deranged academia is at the moment I wouldn't trust them at all.
I think the intent would be for making an independent body organization that has the job of evaluating political candidates, such evaluation should be mandatory for all people who intend to run for a position like governor, senator, president, etc. and with it their consent to make public the findings of this independent organization to the general population, as a measure to inform their vote. I do not think what he meant was for them to pick a president, governor, senataor, etc.
They are psychopaths not idiots. They got PRs to train them for these questions. Afterall, election speech and interview are pre designed and presented in nicest way possible.
The problem of leadership is not simply an “outer world” performance determination, nor is it an “inner world” psychopathic determination. It is quintessentially about determining candidate maturity, specifically their emotional/developmental capacity for empathy; that is, their authentic capacity for caring about others, not their well-developed public personas for acting as if they genuinely cared about anything besides power over others! Leadership, of course, requires more than empathy, but empathy may be the hardest for the typically rigid personality types we too often see as candidates for political office or corporate hierarchies! The principal reasons we infrequently see empathic leaders is that those who put them there likewise fail at that primal category of adult maturity!
To the question, I wouldn't need to be in power when 1 people would listen to each other 2 when no one will result in harming the other over differences, verbally or physically 3 when the weak will be given equal possibility to strengthen 4 when the populace be thought to think critically 5 when freedom of expression become an integral part of art speech and censorship will be in the hands of the beholder not in a prerequisite of any form 6 when the betterment of the total be judged by the way we treat the justice of the individual 7 and this is a personal jest of myself not a law , but to live in a capitalistic society where nothing of daily life is out of hand to no one , and yet make it so that in that society taking pride is about how little you need for yourself and not about how much wealth you can gather
@Andrew Pergiel oh I see your point but it's not training to be better. It would be a malevolent desire to get power and those trainings wouldn't teach that out of them. Also that kinda sounds too similar to education camps
I think that's why an important point in the video is not just to assess people going for power at the beginning but also periodically as they exercise power. In that case, if a psychopath is to avoid getting dethroned, he will need to act in a way that society considers right. Of course I understand there are many limitations to this idea. It is not hard for a psychopath to appear rightous to the public while still exercising their psychopathic desires.
Yeah this guy is a complete manchild psychopaths will be less honest and will train more for the psych tests thinking they have to train much more to pass and normal people will barely lie and learn about it clearly this wrong stupid manchilds.
As someone who originates from Iran I have been saying this for years, people aren't aware that some of us just don't feel emotions the same way and they should not be in charge of running our countries, because terror and war happens!
Follow up: Are the people with these dark triad not necessary in these positions? Or in other words, can someone that does not have these personality traits actually sustain successfully these positions and perform as good as the alternative? or are we going to get presidents that resign every 6 months? Specially important for the corporate world, where they might be asked to do this for decades.
If they’re so confident of the people in power, who some of which are past the average life expectancy btw, are capable in office then they shouldn’t have a problem with psych evals. Why would you even still be working at that age? Retire.
You're looking at this the wrong direction: Bad people don't rise to power, power makes people bad. When the human mind is granted any measure of power, it melts into spaghetti. You can see it in Roman Emperors, RUclipsrs, and anyone who's ever gone on a murderous rampage through a video game city just because one NPC made a snarky remark.
This seems like common sense. Though someone with the dark triad is probably not going to answer the screening questions truthfully. Those questions would be incredibly easy to BS.
It’d be interesting to compare someone’s score on a psychopath test before and after obtaining a position of power, it would reveal to us wether someone is genetically a psychopath or if the stress involved in these high power positions alter their personality into one that reflects psychotic tendencies
OF COURSE high-ranking leaders should be psych-tested and OF COURSE they will not be, Too negative? Perhaps but just imagine Congress passing a law that requires that CONGRESS itself be psych-tested, Nevertheless, it has my vote.....if it ever comes to the people having a vote on the issue.
I like that question. I have similar questions for myself with respect to any job I have: - how can I make aspects of my job either unnecessary or automatic? - how can I imbue institutional knowledge into my work practices, such that anyone with a similar skillset could fill my position without needing to consult me?
This is one of the best ideas I have ever heard. I have always said we should have to take a test to vote. Basic understanding of how our democracy works
bro this thing encapsulate my thoughts lately, on how some leaders are indifference to certain things. How can they make decision when prioritizing the majority and ignored the minority.
Not exactly psyching people out, but Plato's "Republic" dealt with the idea of those most suited for leadership. The best candidates to be so-called Guardians would not necessarily want power, but if they didn't assume leadership, they'd have to pay a penalty, which is having somebody less capable or worthy assume power instead.
The question of why is somehow a metaphysical question in the sense that it calls other why, unending why. For instance, why worst people are worst people in first place? Because the worst people just like the opposite of the worst people, as sentient beings are submitted to determinations. Power is one of the determinations. Thus, worst people can rise to power. And this is also why power can transform the opposite of worst people into worst people. Why worst people are worst people in first place? Are there molds that shape worst people? What worst people tell about themselves through their status of worst people? Do they in control of themeslves? Have they conquered themselves? Do they have hope? Do they have a fear of the Mystery?
Love this channel. If I could make a suggestion… ending credits and links to other video’s should start AFTER the presenter is done speaking. More often than not the last sentence is a conclusion but you are suddenly distracted by junk popping up on the screen. I just put 21 seconds at the end of every video and put info there. 🤓
And yet how would it be put into practice? I doubt there's any screening procedure so clearcut that there wouldn't be legitimate concerns. The field of psychology doesn't have a great reputation for replication. And because the measures would almost certainly have a subjective component, who would get to apply their own interpretations so as to deny the rest of us an option of leadership? That's not an insubstantial amount of power in its own right.
Other options to consider to prevent excessively self-serving people from attaining positions of leadership might be (1) to include some element of chance in the nomination/election process; (2) to distribute or devolve various domains of authority and power to other institutions or regions -- people can't abuse power they don't have (Would removing education, for example, from the control of legislatures/presidents/governors and giving it to _education-specific_ "legislatures" and "governors" -- that is, leaders elected specifically and only for education -- be such a horrible idea?); (3) to try to reintroduce campaigning norms from the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Concerning idea #3: The cultural norms of their time prohibited statesmen of the young American republic from campaigning for themselves. These norms didn't stop those with political appetites from running and it didn't make the process any more civil. However, it did accomplish and would again accomplish two things: (a) it discourages people who are incompetent or apathetic when outside the spotlight and (b) it requires organizational satisfaction to run -- candidates would have to convince (by virtuous means or not) others to proxy for them in an election. Convincing a party to sponsor you for an office race, as we all know, is a weak filter, but it's still a filter, and although many filters and constraints have unintended adverse consequences, requiring that others will be willing to work with you to achieve a shared slate of goals may not be at the top of that list.
I absolutely agree that leading politicians should be tested psychologically. Unfortunately, they become leading politicians, because they gradually increase their power, which enables them to avoid psychological tests and their consequences. The simple principle we humans should implement everywhere is that power needs control! Power should never be concentrated in the hands of a few!
Do you think people seeking power should be psychologically tested?
No. Even without a test it's pretty obvious that some people are toxic. And yet the crowd gives them the role. Therefore, tests are useless because the answer is already known. The question is why no-one cares about the obvious.
It's useless.They lie as they breathe.
Absolutely. But they are good liars. We may need advanced mechanisms to diagnose them correctly.
@@RedEyeification Common sense is unfortunately not so common.
A great psychologist/counselor/therapist/social worker could gather when the interviewee is putting on a facade- even the convincing ones.
*Another issue:* The exact people suited for the job are the exact people most likely to hold themselves accountable or feel bothered by their failures. This means that they're more likely to resign from their position in shame, when in reality, their mistake was probably worth working past and sticking things out. This creates a scenario where the best-suited personalities are likely to be driven away from power precisely because they understand the burden of responsibility, whilst those looking to exploit it for personal gain will seek it.
Even IF we screen for the worst traits, we'd probably still end up with non-ideal leaders off that alone.
Assuming an individualistic viewpoint. If you look at group dynamics then you'll see that they tend to sort these things out by themselves. It is rather the attempt of regulation that prevents that and enables people to claim and hold positions that they don't fit in because the regulation doesn't allow the flexibility necessary for change.
That seems a valid point, albeit a somewhat depressing one.
Also why we need to have support structures in place to coach leaders when to stay alongside with structures to remove the compromised.
This is a problem that should be addressed and discussed in order to further validate and amend this process because imo if this can be pulled off right, it will be a game changer. I also did mention the introduction of a 4th Governmental Body that can check and balance the other 3, but is a compulsory body made up of everyday people, something similar to a jury, except that it's a jury that judges and regulates the Government. There's more to it, but that's the concept in a nutshell.
Don't select the top or the bottom choice, try the best of the rest. Do this twice more and you got it.
More than half of our government and most of the Supreme Court would be unemployed if we had psychological standards.
Exactly.....and, as you so well-said, "More than half of our government and most of the Supreme Court" know that.
WRONG, UNCOMPLETE. Their seats would be freed, yes, but for somme immensly helpful and competent "utopist" altruists who, currently, are unemployed and have always been belitteled and depressive because of these narcisstic 'realists' - who, if becoming unemployed 'to' the (public payd) sectors.. would not constitute a societal problem (be a least financial burden) - largely compensated for by EQ at the commands.
@@AR-vf7vg huh?
@@mmerkley402 (Thanks.. I modified and tried to redact somewhat better...)
@Pooja Sahoo So You advocate for status quo, and perfectly (believing to be smart) self explained.
What conflict, do You 'think, did you allude to?
Testing for evil is tricky. People with no empathy lie and are extremely manipulative. They lead double lives, fooling and threatening everyone. Thank you for making this video. I’ve been wanting it for a long time. This can’t be discussed enough. Test all officials, including all agencies and service limits are a necessity.
I concur!
Spot on.
Yeah how would you even test an intelligent psychopath when they know they are being tested? I think most of them could find answers that don't reveal their true colours.
And judges, etc.
I've taken a couple of these tests online and came away with the feeling that one could easily lie to get the desired result.
I couldn't agree more. Maybe the reason we don't have psych tests for those in the highest positions of power, is because those already in the highest seats of power know that implementing anything of the sort would negatively affect them, therefore such filters are never introduced. The question then is, how do we get such tests introduced?
Same as congressional (insider) trading. They'll never regulate themselves.
If everyone wants them we get them, the power lies with the people, we just dont know it.
@@breakingbadest9772 the people have been divided past reconciliation imo
Most would fail.
This is a free country. The people (not the House) can organize and write laws just like Congress and pass them with a vote (see referendum), where the people vote before Congress ever has a chance to discuss the referendum results. Congress will resist, of course, but with an overwhelming majority, they can't. To not concede to the people would be to admit this nation is not a democracy.
But we the people might run into a constitutional issue. If we act in lieu of Congress, the new law would still have to receive presidential approval. Again, it will seem like an authoritarian state if the President does not sign our bill into law. If it gets presidential approval (or not), it will establish a new legal precedent. The people who vote for the bill will be called traitors, and the leaders behind the bill will have to face a lot of pressure.
And there are a few states in the United States that do not allow for citizen-initiated referendums. These states include Delaware, Indiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
The question is - who would be willing to take the lead in advocating for the bill?
The problem with such a test - any type of test that is intended to weed out the worst person for the job for that matter - is that those who control the administration of that test, will inevitably control power.
Bingo. Which will then start the cycle all over again in a new context.
Exactly. Which is why the only way to reduce the abuse of power is to spread power and responsibility instead of centralising power more which inevitably leads to abuse.
@@sonkeschmidt2027 this is why theres checks and balances in government
They would have to show the public that the test indicates the traits it is supposed to indicate.
We have tests now-one of them whether they graduated college. Another is whether they committed a felony. In both cases, someone could be a good leader without passing the test, but more often, drawing leaders from the pool of college graduates with no felony convictions will result in better leadership overall.
Not even the biggest problem regarding testing imo, but how would you even test someone for the dark triad? Smart psychopaths can easily figure out what the purpose of a question is and how to respond in a manner that doesn't show their true colours. Especially if they know they are being tested, that is why their true identity only comes to light when they have already gained power.
This is one of the most important videos on youtube imo.The problem of psychopaths in power is arguably the leading cause of suffering in not only the US, but many other countries as well. If people in power actually cared about the people, instead of dividing and conquering with their fear propaganda and profit-at-any-cost motives, lives would improve dramatically and many lives would be saved.
Yes. Most people who land a professional position are expected to meet qualifications involving education and experience; possibly a personality profile, psych eval, or whatever else the organization requires to establish their fitness for the position. It has baffled (and horrified) me that apparently the same minimum criteria are not required of high-ranking leaders! Especially in government.
Most professional leaders don’t have to take any psych tests. In the corporate world, the most engaging and charismatic tend to rise to the top. We are all beholden to whoever has the most charisma instead of who has the most aptitude.
I think high-ranking leaders can easily pass a psych test, especially considering they have power, money and intelligence, which allows them to access the necessary training to pass those tests.
You'd be surprised. Psychopaths have no direct experience actually feeling empathy, and have trouble faking it. A paradigmatic case is a Spanish lawyer years ago who attempted to frame a man who had recently been released from prison. She tried to frame him for the sexual assault and murder of her adopted daughter. She was very thorough, used privileged information to get access to the guy's DNA, and when she and her husband murdered the girl they planted a trail of evidence pointing to this man, who had a violent criminal record and who they had every reason to believe would never have more credibility than two wealthy lawyers. One piece of evidence they left was a story that one night she had discovered a man in the daughter's room who had climbed in through the window and then fled when she entered, after which she became so scared that she left town for a few days. Asked why she didn't contact police, she replied that she just hoped that he wouldn't come back.
She was arrested as a suspect shortly thereafter. No normal mother would not call the police in that situation, or leave for only a 'few days' only to come back and leave her daughter alone and unsupervised in the same house and town. She could plant evidence, but she had no idea how to simulate believable emotional reactions in the scenarios she invented. The first time she cried was in jail, when she realized she was busted.
Yes they can study to the test.
you mean hack into them and falsify their scores?
With prior training evn sociopaths or psychopaths can pass these tests.
I mean it will catch the Donal Trumps. bofore they get the power, since they have non of the others.
I managed HR for a successful startup and watched one particular founder recruit, use, abuse, and discard countless people - damaging their careers and likely their psyche in the process. Unfortunately, I include myself in that list. Having to work closely with this individual for years was likely similar to living in a family with an abusive head of household
I did freelance work finally. I’d say it’s the best choice I’ve made in my life.
Isn't that the goal of HR in general? Hire the best for the job for the least amount of money, use and abuse them to get the job done and then throw them away the second you don't need them anymore or they get burned out.
@@silotx That's the goal of management or whoever has an allocated budget for the department/employees they manage and are expected to stay within. As a whole, HR will exist along a spectrum as far as how employee-focused or evil/hand-in-hand/subservient to management they are. It partially depends on the people who are in HR leadership, but mostly on the Operations and Management leadership of the organization (since they can fire HR leadership and replace them with someone more willing to fall in line). Unless your experience is formed by a bad HR leader, I would guess that your quarrel is directly with management or management using HR as a tool to accomplish some of their dirty work
He made use of them as needed & disposed of them as needed. Hence why they were a 'successful' startup. The workers who justified their position through ability likely ensured that they weren't disposed of so readily. The world's a cold place. Boohoo.
“Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it.” (Plato)
That's another characteristics of the benevolent dictator
Harry S. Truman is a great example
Instead, train more people to identify psychopaths at a younger age. Developing a test that could not be corrupted would prove too much.
Might lead to mass distrust and subsequently the social contract would break.
I've been running away from psychopaths my whole life. They are fucking everywhere
That would fail for the same reason as the test. Schools & places of training are not free of corruption, either. Psychopaths are capable of taking over an entire school & replacing all the teachers with people who can push their agenda.
You're missing the point, psych's adapt and live within general masses. And as the comment above stated, at that point people will only learn to distrust everyone and cooperation would be extremely challenging.
Not even the best profesional psychologist can diagnose psychopathy with any reasonable certainty from televise debates or things like that. It requires you to actually put the work in.
Finally somebody's talking on the real issue .
Thank you
This video solves nothing. Humanity has known about this for centuries. This is why the French have revolted and kings lost their head.
I don't think we will ever solve this
@@yan7314 that has been a thing since the beginning of human civilisation. It's like sexism, I don't think it will ever go away.
@@yan7314 hopefully and it's only hopefully that I can say
Oh man, there is so much truth here. As a former computer consultant and business owner, I worked in corporations and within government at the municipal, provincial and federal government and I watched narcissism and more around me all the time. And worse still, due to all the protections within these organizations (particularly government) such as unions and the golden handcuffs of pensions and other aspects … the only way you could get rid of someone with an unhealthy mindset was to PROMOTE them out of your area vs fire them. I see it ALL the time here in BC and makes me sick to my stomach. So, often, the worst people escaped a scene they created (leaving a mess behind), got a raise (amplifying their ego and validating their actions) but also took their BS with them to a bigger position. And what happens next? Shit rolls downhill…
Loved this so much. Thank you. 🧡🐳
Well said.
The title alone brought such a smile to my face. Anyone with a position of power, position to teach children, public office, police, should all be psych tested. "With great power comes great responsibility."
Thanks!
Thank you so much! Well appreciated.
Power also in of itself isn’t bad, power just means the ability to act or change. The issue is that power is often centralized in the hands of a few which means they have a disproportionate amount over others which of course will allow them to implement things which benefit them!
1.000% Agree (1,000 I mean): it's hell about time that this kind of Ethical question is systematically addressed in our societies; 'otherwise it won't do' (there's a curious Japanese main expression for this: "-shinakereba narimasen". Even though it's unlikely to happen of a sudden everywhere, there should be some fields in which these new ways of dealing with this problematic could be implemented, as fundamental starting points.
One percent agree implies 99% disagree.
@@Apeiron242 It's one thousand %. Not all countries use commas to denote thousands. €1.000,99 is one thousand and 99 cents in Euros.
@@TheWhiskeyDouble Thanks for the conscious disambiguation, that's exactly what happened there. I meant one thousand indeed and made the correction.
@@TheWhiskeyDouble They did a classic American kekk.
Wow, I've harped on this for years. It's good to finally hear someone else say it!
The problem underneath all of this is that we are a sick society producing sick people. To fix this we need a global shift, I see more and more people working on themselves and raising healthier children but it's a slow process and I'm not too optimistic because I think we are in a really bad place and would need a big change like yesterday.
They should teach this at school
They should teach at school.
They don't teach anything at school except BS. Schools are indoctrination centers.
They should teach
They should strip more individuality away from school
@@jimk8520 good recommendation
The worst people are obsessed with power while the best people want nothing to do with it
🎉🎉👍👍
This is informative. We look forward to seeing more videos like this.
what do you mean by "we"
@@IamRanJos Korea
@@IamRanJos The Galactic Federation.
In theory, the idea of a psychological test for positions of power sounds great. But, as Robert Hare, who committed his research to psychopathy and invented the 'Psychopathy Checklist', stated in his book 'Without Conscience', psychopaths, at least the smart ones, are extremely skilled in manipulating and playing people - even psychologists. They'll know exactly what you want to hear and it takes years of practise to detect the traits correctly. And if the psychopath made it this far he will know how to play the game.
Also psychopaths are not all necessarily impulsive. The literature suggests there are actually two types: type 1 is the callous/strategic psychopath who will more likely rise to power as he is goal oriented and strategic, type 2 is the impulsive or histrionic one who will end up more likely in prison than C-Level. Both are narcissistic, but just type 1 is machivellistic.
Great idea, the only problem is that eventually psychopaths would learn what to say to pass the tests.
Following a pattern of actions to me is a better test.
I have a degree in psychology, and we were taught these sophisticated tests can discern a fraud; these test creators are not dummies functioning in the dark: They've been at this task for many decades. We desperately need to know more about who we're giving the keys to the kingdom to. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., would have washed out quickly. This idea needs to become reality, but will it? I don't know. Your guess is as good as mine.
Yes, they would just hire a team of proffesional psychologist to teach them pass the test. The problem is creating the perfect test
I dont think when they say 'test' they mean just 'a test'. You are correct though that is a possibility - it has to be totally rigirous. I was about to say that there should be a number of people selected that 'know' the applicant going for the power position to be interviewed.. but then that might not stop the applicant bribing those people to say good things about them. Basically, the procedure for vetting has to be thoroughly thought out with a diverse of psychological, legal and political experts.
They actually do pass these tests.
"Power doesn't corrupt, power inevitably attracts the corrupted"
According to Klass' book its both.
A lack of empathy for others usually results in a singular drive to "succeed" - most often at the expense of said others. So whatever psychological variables are involved it still boils down to what society deems as supposed "success". We as a culture reward the acquisition of wealth and power. This means we therefore will often look the other way at how it was achieved to rationalize its purported end results rather than the path it took to get there. Many - but not all - "successful" people actually have sociopathic tendencies if one was honest. 🤨
Precisely. Those that aren't concerned with fantasy-scenario things like "morals" or whatever are free to focus purely on the concrete & material. On success. And their clarity of mind makes them a sharp threat to those around them, the "incapables". Also, it has nothing to do with what society "deems" successful; all organisms pursue the further acquisition of resources (IE. the gathering of wealth, gaining of power). Squirrel's hoard nuts, Lion's fight off their own family so they can have a greater share of the meat, etc. it has nothing to do with "society". Weaklings & losers tell themselves humans only value power & wealth due to conditioning because it provides them a convenient excuse for why they aren't a complete failure at life.
"Just because I've failed to amass wealth & power doesn't mean I'm a loser, those things don't decide success! That's just what society decided!!" is the perfect example of "Whatever helps you sleep at night".
To quote Frank Herbert from his book, Chapterhouse: Dune
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
You could add; if someone picks up the responsibility for millions of people, how can that person be rewarded to keep in line with his/her function? Mf's stuff themselves for their imagined suffering or are born into a life of leisure, prolonging it into politics.
Hi Brain, Great video - again! Paul Babiak has done some of the research you probably read getting your Ph.D. He and Robert Hare have suggested interviewing those subordinate to folks moving up the corporate ladder (or similar) to assess the likelihood of psychopathic traits. This approach should foil any attempt of the psychopath to manipulate the outcome of testing.
This seems in theory more effective than just a psychological test. Because you can cheat a test but you can’t cheat your nature when unsuspecting
The question i've been wondering for so long. Thanks for this answer. May those evil leaders get what they deserve because we can never ever stop those bastards from rising to power. That is just the way it is.
We absolutely could stop them, we just don’t.
100% This!!!! Yes, yes, yes! -- Also, psychopaths are very cool and collected in times of high stress. That is why many good brain surgeons are also psychopaths. They are able to get the job done with very little stress due to their lack of empathy for others.
Beautiful piece
if we started psychologically testing leaders, they would just figure out how to game the system. If the methods to identify test takers that are trying to game the system with their answers can be fooled (in a written or verbal test). I think having public debates and interviews, and looking at a leaders track record (and interview people who know them from childhood through adulthood is the best method of screening we have). As for CEO's of companies, when are people going to realize they aren't there to protect the environment, employ citzens of the country they are from, or provide some other social benefit. They are there to make profits for their Board of Directors, other Executives of the Company and the Investor (that is literally their job is to do this), and that is why in America they can legally fire American employees and move those jobs to other countries so they can pay the workers a lot less money, and not have to pay them health insurance benefits/401K (making more profits for investors and themselves). As for political leaders that is a whole different story, except the area that is totally corrupted is in Washington DC you have corporate industry lobby groups that influence politicians (including with employment laws, corporate oversight/regulations, etc.) If I wanted to *fix* the system I would start with outlawing lobby groups, and then I would increase the penalties for politicians corrupt behavior (that includes them making millions in the stock market and getting high paying jobs for themselves/family/friends when they leave political office, they need to create a special department to go after corrupt politicians, because whoever is handle this now, they are not doing their job, they only go after certain people like Donald Trump, and that is because he upset the political powers in DC, it is selective prosecution.
You know Donald Trump is a malignant narcissist and never should have been president? That guy lies more than he breathes.
That last sentence just undid everything you wrote before it 😂
that s why the list of potential people you can vote for , for any given position, should not include people who **want** to be, but just a general list of people who have the necessary knowledge and skill background to not make a complete mess. because generally, people who doesn't wish to be in power tend to be people responsible enough to know the responsibilities that come with power. while the ones who want power tend to see power as a toy, and not as a mighty but potentially dangerous tool.
I am glad people are finally discussing this stuff as a key variable in human management on every scale. But the solution is not psych evals all around. The real problems are enforcement of dismissal and replacement, blackmail, misdiagnosis, bureaucratic infighting, extortion. Leaders can be evaluated by their results without resorting to psych evals and inevitable silo mentality regardless of their good or bad outcomes (fire type Xs even if they do a good job; retain type Y screwups because their psych eval is negative for key traits).
Nobody at all should have so much power - the weak, the stupid, and the cowards allow them to have power.
I've been saying this for decades.
It's about time to hear this from someone who matters.
Also, thank you for using a thumbnail of a popular psychopath in American government. This really helps drive home the point.
You meter.
love love love this approach!!!!!
Yass! 500% true - not only leaders - teachers, cops, and Ärzte, too. And there are many more people exploiting there positions as persons of authority, hurting other people and the system.🤷♀️
Good question. And I feel that the answer should always be "Once that the organization has become sufficiently self-governing, I am not needed in power anymore."
Cool topic!! 💕
the problem with tests is an intelligent person/psychopath can figure them out and can also be the most charming person around. You'd need to look deeper into their background, at their relationships.
This reminds me of the Star Trek policy that allowed a ship's doctor to deem the captain unfit for duty.
That is technically taken from current law though. A president can be declared unfit to govern and removed. I believe it's referred to as the "no confidence" vote on most anglo speaking countries. But it's not the point of this video.
People get the leaders they deserve. Simple as that. Be good and have good leaders and don't tolerate bad leaders.
Some of the same traits, when NOT taken to the extreme, are what is needed to be a leader. For example, excessinve emotionality can be very unhelpful in making decisions in many situations. A balance is needed. If they could find a way to test to determine levels, that would be more helpful. Someone else in the comments did bring up the fact that the candidates were to be tested, people would likely try to game the system (perhaps with corroboration with those administering the tests if there is corruption) and I think this would be a concern.
Good points. Also it must be said the average person is very unstrategic. This doesn’t guarantee authenticity or innocence at all. Being strategic is good but it is also facile to suggest someone who is good isn’t able to game a system.
It is also inaccurate to suggest I think people who currently feel disenfranchised and undervalued, that they wouldn’t do the exact same thing if they were in the position of powerful people. Being underpowered currently doesn’t mean they’re good people. In fact, in democracies (discounting for weird election result systems), it’s sometimes the people who vote for ridiculous leaders.
Awareness. Is the key.
As a citizen of country with psychopath in charge cant agree more. I curently work on article (and maybe even book) about power corruption.
Muhammad gave a much simpler test when he said, "Anyone who says 'I should be the leader' is automatically disqualified from being a leader"
@xxf No, it should be a pre-elimination test as a whole. And it fits into what he is describing. A leader should be able to explain what his main purpose is, and if he is true to that mission, then he should step down after the completion of his mission.
Amen brother. Well said.
Diane Feinstein needs to answer the question about what she wants to accomplish that would allow her to step down.
This sentiment was already clear two millenia ago and outlined by Plato in his Republic dialogue. So this idea is far from being new, but for some reason (like elites being self-sealing and tremendously good at gatekeeping) we still did not get the hang of it. I can hardly think of more then two or three leaders in the last century that actually qualify.
I don't trust the phrase "power corrupts". Power doesn't do the corrupting. It's a choice, and people choose corruption and then claim "power made me do it".
That's what most people believe when they claim more power. Until they get corrupted and are confronted with how little they are actually able to choose. It's easy to believe we are in control but once you are confronted with real power... Reality will tell you a lot about that.
While I do agree that it is a choice in the moment, it's the power that sets them up to make those choices. Which is why the phrase isn't "power forces people to make corrupt choices"
Well done.
I've learned from exploring "top popular characters" from all sort of fictionnal media, be it movies, animes, books etc... That even in fictional stories, people are very seduced by psychopaths, their seductive power is so high, that even a created character with those traits will be worshipped by a large part of the population, it's absolutely scary.
We probably culturally elevated the idea of someone who can take great risks at the expense of everyone in some way or another, maybe we should assess the fact that we all have a responsibility in it. We don't appreciate nice people as much as we appreciate people who are extravagant.
Humans stay human, we might not like it but it is that way. To protect us from the worst consequences we created courts, laws and institutions.
Now, add to that that corporations and other organizations taken on their own attributes as any entity does. Ironic that they are now recognized as “ individuals “ with rights…yet we don’t seem capable of holding them responsible and liable as we would an individual…further, the individual members of such powerful entities plead that they are powerless to change the “ culture” of these most powerful entities!
Thank you!
High empathy people care about others and burn out because of it. Want to be a successful lawyer? Much easier if your clients bad choices don't bother you, and you maximize the benefit to you instead of the client without regret. This describes all successful financial planners, politicians, CEO's and used ar dealers.
That's not entirely correct though. We don't live in a vacuum. People can spot narcissists quite well, the problem isn't detection it's dependency.
In most cases people with no empathy don't get very far because they can't function socially.
Most people you consider to be narcissistic are just cold hearted but capable of learning. True narcissists get spotted eventually and removed by their social environment in most cases.
I think you're both right. The narcissist will be phased out of his personal relationships but not the sporadic ones like business relationships of a salesmen etc. I don't think either situation is all inclusive and there's a lot of nuance to each situation.
Love this so much! Spread the word Big Think!
I like the idea of psychological testing of people on positions of power but we also need psychological controls over the people giving that psychological testing too- keeping things in balance
I think is implied that it should follow as scientific a process as possible. given that psychology is technically a pseudo-science.
Because power is what brings out the worst of people although in some rare cases... best
how would you ensure people answer truthfully or figure out who is not though? for a smart person it would be easy to learn what the "right" answers would be or what would be expected of them.. you mentioned yourself that narcissistic persons tend to be attuned to what others think of them and get them to like them, machiavellian persons have a very strategic mindset..
"Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals"
It should require competency training too, like an apprenticeship or trial period to see if they can actually do the job.
Nature has designed the paths to power in such a way that only people with dark personality traits can progress quickly on them and obtain power. And power it's is so fragile to maintain that only people with even darker personality traits can remain in power.
It's been 3 years since I tried DMT, can't find a plug anywhere in my area. Back then, We used one of those vaporizers with the big bags. The first time I didn't do enough and I just seen shapes and colours. But the second time I managed to get another hit in before I got the light headed. I remember floating above the country side flying and then all of a sudden I zoomed down into a deer and went right inside of it and I was the veins and the blood and flowing through this deers body. It was very strange lol
Strongly recommend just sticking to shrooms if you want an hallucinogenic experience. I was given "acid" one time by someone I trusted
[tripy_marc]
Ships psychedelics
@@Lisa78843 how can I reach out?
On IG?
Wanna try, buy keep being told I can't do it alone for the first time but I'd literally be so much more comfortable alone
@@James_14_4
Yeah, he has variety of stuffs like mushrooms, Id, DMT even the chocolate bars
The only negative about this video is it's too short. Most vids on RUclips should be 5 minutes because of short attention spans, but this is one of those rare kinds that could extend it to 18 minutes and I would watch the entire thing.
I'd be all for this with one caveat. Systems must be put in place to prevent the psychologists from becoming the ones who ultimately decide if someone should be in power, because otherwise all you've done is just move the deciding body from the electorate to the psychologists. And given how deranged academia is at the moment I wouldn't trust them at all.
I think the intent would be for making an independent body organization that has the job of evaluating political candidates, such evaluation should be mandatory for all people who intend to run for a position like governor, senator, president, etc. and with it their consent to make public the findings of this independent organization to the general population, as a measure to inform their vote. I do not think what he meant was for them to pick a president, governor, senataor, etc.
This was excellent!
They are psychopaths not idiots. They got PRs to train them for these questions. Afterall, election speech and interview are pre designed and presented in nicest way possible.
The problem of leadership is not simply an “outer world” performance determination, nor is it an “inner world” psychopathic determination. It is quintessentially about determining candidate maturity, specifically their emotional/developmental capacity for empathy; that is, their authentic capacity for caring about others, not their well-developed public personas for acting as if they genuinely cared about anything besides power over others!
Leadership, of course, requires more than empathy, but empathy may be the hardest for the typically rigid personality types we too often see as candidates for political office or corporate hierarchies!
The principal reasons we infrequently see empathic leaders is that those who put them there likewise fail at that primal category of adult maturity!
Agreed but wouldn’t these types find ways to game these tests if they knew they had to face them?
To the question,
I wouldn't need to be in power when
1 people would listen to each other
2 when no one will result in harming the other over differences, verbally or physically
3 when the weak will be given equal possibility to strengthen
4 when the populace be thought to think critically
5 when freedom of expression become an integral part of art speech and censorship will be in the hands of the beholder not in a prerequisite of any form
6 when the betterment of the total be judged by the way we treat the justice of the individual
7 and this is a personal jest of myself not a law , but to live in a capitalistic society where nothing of daily life is out of hand to no one , and yet make it so that in that society taking pride is about how little you need for yourself and not about how much wealth you can gather
Having a psych test will just cause the same people to train how to pass such tests
Interesting. How about this? In that training, those people learn to be better versions of themselves?🙂
@Andrew Pergiel oh I see your point but it's not training to be better. It would be a malevolent desire to get power and those trainings wouldn't teach that out of them. Also that kinda sounds too similar to education camps
Maybe do a complete background check, like how the intelligence community profile foreign leaders.
I think that's why an important point in the video is not just to assess people going for power at the beginning but also periodically as they exercise power. In that case, if a psychopath is to avoid getting dethroned, he will need to act in a way that society considers right. Of course I understand there are many limitations to this idea. It is not hard for a psychopath to appear rightous to the public while still exercising their psychopathic desires.
Yeah this guy is a complete manchild psychopaths will be less honest and will train more for the psych tests thinking they have to train much more to pass and normal people will barely lie and learn about it clearly this wrong stupid manchilds.
As someone who originates from Iran I have been saying this for years, people aren't aware that some of us just don't feel emotions the same way and they should not be in charge of running our countries, because terror and war happens!
Even if you don't have much emotion-you can still posess other types of mental empathy.
Follow up: Are the people with these dark triad not necessary in these positions? Or in other words, can someone that does not have these personality traits actually sustain successfully these positions and perform as good as the alternative? or are we going to get presidents that resign every 6 months? Specially important for the corporate world, where they might be asked to do this for decades.
Like it! Could the same concept be applied to police applicants?
If they’re so confident of the people in power, who some of which are past the average life expectancy btw, are capable in office then they shouldn’t have a problem with psych evals.
Why would you even still be working at that age? Retire.
You're looking at this the wrong direction: Bad people don't rise to power, power makes people bad.
When the human mind is granted any measure of power, it melts into spaghetti.
You can see it in Roman Emperors, RUclipsrs, and anyone who's ever gone on a murderous rampage through a video game city just because one NPC made a snarky remark.
This seems like common sense. Though someone with the dark triad is probably not going to answer the screening questions truthfully. Those questions would be incredibly easy to BS.
OMG YES I've been thinking this for a long time now!!!!
No test needed. Just give them a Twitter account and see what comes out.
It’d be interesting to compare someone’s score on a psychopath test before and after obtaining a position of power, it would reveal to us wether someone is genetically a psychopath or if the stress involved in these high power positions alter their personality into one that reflects psychotic tendencies
Putin, Xi, and Trump would fail the test without question.
As would most politicians.
Another Epic Big Think presentation! Thanks. This allows me to better examine my personality complex
OF COURSE high-ranking leaders should be psych-tested and OF COURSE they will not be, Too negative? Perhaps but just imagine Congress passing a law that requires that CONGRESS itself be psych-tested, Nevertheless, it has my vote.....if it ever comes to the people having a vote on the issue.
I like that question. I have similar questions for myself with respect to any job I have:
- how can I make aspects of my job either unnecessary or automatic?
- how can I imbue institutional knowledge into my work practices, such that anyone with a similar skillset could fill my position without needing to consult me?
"What would it take for you to think that you are no longer necessary in power?"
Perfection.
This is one of the best ideas I have ever heard.
I have always said we should have to take a test to vote. Basic understanding of how our democracy works
Very well said!
bro this thing encapsulate my thoughts lately, on how some leaders are indifference to certain things. How can they make decision when prioritizing the majority and ignored the minority.
Not exactly psyching people out, but Plato's "Republic" dealt with the idea of those most suited for leadership. The best candidates to be so-called Guardians would not necessarily want power, but if they didn't assume leadership, they'd have to pay a penalty, which is having somebody less capable or worthy assume power instead.
The question of why is somehow a metaphysical question in the sense that it calls other why, unending why. For instance, why worst people are worst people in first place?
Because the worst people just like the opposite of the worst people, as sentient beings are submitted to determinations. Power is one of the determinations. Thus, worst people can rise to power. And this is also why power can transform the opposite of worst people into worst people.
Why worst people are worst people in first place?
Are there molds that shape worst people?
What worst people tell about themselves through their status of worst people?
Do they in control of themeslves?
Have they conquered themselves?
Do they have hope?
Do they have a fear of the Mystery?
Love this channel. If I could make a suggestion… ending credits and links to other video’s should start AFTER the presenter is done speaking. More often than not the last sentence is a conclusion but you are suddenly distracted by junk popping up on the screen. I just put 21 seconds at the end of every video and put info there. 🤓
As well as politicians, also the police and the judiciary, I've always said, need this screening for the dark triad.
Absolutely. Hallelujah.
And yet how would it be put into practice? I doubt there's any screening procedure so clearcut that there wouldn't be legitimate concerns. The field of psychology doesn't have a great reputation for replication. And because the measures would almost certainly have a subjective component, who would get to apply their own interpretations so as to deny the rest of us an option of leadership? That's not an insubstantial amount of power in its own right.
Other options to consider to prevent excessively self-serving people from attaining positions of leadership might be
(1) to include some element of chance in the nomination/election process;
(2) to distribute or devolve various domains of authority and power to other institutions or regions -- people can't abuse power they don't have (Would removing education, for example, from the control of legislatures/presidents/governors and giving it to _education-specific_ "legislatures" and "governors" -- that is, leaders elected specifically and only for education -- be such a horrible idea?);
(3) to try to reintroduce campaigning norms from the late 17th and early 18th centuries.
Concerning idea #3: The cultural norms of their time prohibited statesmen of the young American republic from campaigning for themselves. These norms didn't stop those with political appetites from running and it didn't make the process any more civil. However, it did accomplish and would again accomplish two things: (a) it discourages people who are incompetent or apathetic when outside the spotlight and (b) it requires organizational satisfaction to run -- candidates would have to convince (by virtuous means or not) others to proxy for them in an election. Convincing a party to sponsor you for an office race, as we all know, is a weak filter, but it's still a filter, and although many filters and constraints have unintended adverse consequences, requiring that others will be willing to work with you to achieve a shared slate of goals may not be at the top of that list.
Well done
This is needed. I would say there should be a rule against badmouthing others in debates.
Great vid
I think about how NASA screens astronauts and remember how incredibly humble Neil Armstrong was, yet one hell of a leader.
4:35 Been a long time since ive had a question make me take a pause for thought like this one.
I absolutely agree that leading politicians should be tested psychologically. Unfortunately, they become leading politicians, because they gradually increase their power, which enables them to avoid psychological tests and their consequences. The simple principle we humans should implement everywhere is that power needs control! Power should never be concentrated in the hands of a few!