"5 Scientific Reasons Why Powerful People Will Always Suck"

[synthesis]

http://www.cracked.com/article_18777_5-scientific-reasons-powerful-people-will-always-suck.html

I'd never heard of these studies before, but I find them very interesting. They basically strike me as a new version of the Milgram, Asch and Stanford prison experiments.

These are the studies in question, if anyone wants to skip the article above.

1. Power and Self-Absorption Go Hand in Hand (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/afps-sgu011007.php)

2. Feeling Powerful Makes It Easier to Lie (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35836844/)

3. Experiments Show Power and Hypocrisy Are Linked in the Brain (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/04/27/power-breed-hypocrisy-%E2%80%93-the-powerful-judge-others-more-harshly-but-cheat-more-themselves/) (the most interesting, in my opinion)

4. Power Gives You a False (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1883658,00.html) Belief in Your Abilities (http://www.dreammanifesto.com/berkeley-study-reveals-that-powerful-people-take-more-risks.html)

5. Feelings of Power Trigger a Lack of Compassion (http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2008/vankleef.cfm) (also interesting)

Thoughts?

[Axle]

My thoughts are that this could all be spot-on, but Cracked is a comedy site and should be treated like one.

[synthesis]

Sure, that's why I put it in Chit-Chat. At the same time, the article's claims are based on academic studies, and they provide sources, so I don't think you can dismiss it as "just comedy." I think it's a pretty good aggregation of studies that basically point to the same conclusion.

[Os Cangaceiros]

See also: all of recorded human history.

[synthesis]

See also: all of recorded human history.
True, but I was particularly struck by one comment after that article. Namely, what's interesting about these studies is the same thing I find interesting about the Milgram/Stanford prison experiments: that they don't just demonstrate the phenomena, they (appear to) demonstrate causality.

That is, they don't just show that "powerful people are dicks," they show that ordinary people become dicks when put into positions of power. I think they show us something about human nature, something that is as malleable as it is intrinsic. Would you disagree?

[Os Cangaceiros]

True, but I was particularly struck by one comment after that article. Namely, what's interesting about these studies is the same thing I find interesting about the Milgram/Stanford prison experiments: that they don't just demonstrate the phenomena, they (appear to) demonstrate causality.

That is, they don't just show that "powerful people are dicks," they show that ordinary people become dicks when put into positions of power. I think they show us something about human nature, something that is as malleable as it is intrinsic. Would you disagree?

No, I actually do agree with the claim that normally good people can become monsters quite easily if they're given enough power and isolated from the decisions that they make. It kind of annoys me when some leftists fetishize the concept of "power", like it's some entity that only needs to be wielded in the right hands (forgetting about tankies for a moment). While that is true to a certain extent, I do think that "power" in the abstract is an extremely dangerous servant. That's part of the reason that I identify with anarchism more than Marxism: the critique of power and authority (although I also realize that the practical applications of that critique only goes so far in the real world).

[black magick hustla]

tbh part of becoming a monster is that everybody else is a monster. there is a reason why alvaro obregon was the last standing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvaro_Obregon

although he later got murdered by some catholic crazy

[¿Que?]

That is, they don't just show that "powerful people are dicks," they show that ordinary people become dicks when put into positions of power. I think they show us something about human nature, something that is as malleable as it is intrinsic. Would you disagree?
I think when you start talking about human nature, then you get into sticky situations about essentializing human beings, and whatnot. Human nature, for example, is a favorite concept among anti-communists, because ultimately it suggests the way things are are the way they should be. I prefer to think in terms of basic laws of human organization, particularly in terms of the ways material conditions affect it.

The Milgram experiment mostly shows that people tend to follow what an authority figure says, even if it conflicts with their own beliefs. This tells us something about how organizations develop and gives us a sense about what makes for a cohesive unit. Take a look at the military, the less individual thought, the better it functions (provided that the higher ups know what they're doing). But as a general rule, people tend to follow authority so long as they consider it authority, and do so beyond their own personal beliefs. In fact, a few people in that study were actually quite distraught about having to administer the shock, and the study is often cited as an example of questionable ethics.

Although I think you raise a good point in asking if there's a causal link between power and abuse. If one exerts power as a response to a perceived threat, then you have to ask if any exertion of power is justified when one occupies a higher position in some hierarchy. But somewhere along the lines of what maldodor is saying, power seems to be a social act. Power of a country, for example, requires people to accept that authority and carry out its will. In the prison experiment, seems the dick was Zimbardo.

[synthesis]

I think when you start talking about human nature, then you get into sticky situations about essentializing human beings, and whatnot.

Perhaps. We're still animals, though, social animals, and social animals, not just humans, generally deal with some sort of power dynamic.


Human nature, for example, is a favorite concept among anti-communists, because ultimately it suggests the way things are are the way they should be. I prefer to think in terms of basic laws of human organization, particularly in terms of the ways material conditions affect it.

Why can't we consider both?

[synthesis]

tbh part of becoming a monster is that everybody else is a monster. there is a reason why alvaro obregon was the last standing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvaro_Obregon

although he later got murdered by some catholic crazy

True, but, shit, you could say the same thing about Stalin. Power can be used defensively, but it still changes who you are.

(Thanks for moving the thread, BTW.)

[¿Que?]

Perhaps. We're still animals, though, social animals, and social animals, not just humans, generally deal with some sort of power dynamic.
What I'm saying is that power dynamics do not result from inherent qualities in some group that another does not posses. There are no inherent qualities among whites that place them at the high end, rather, they tend to hold more power in society due to material conditions that favored them, and the fact that power tends to perpetuate itself, so that it's easier for those in power to maintain power and increase their ability to exert it. Also, not to mention that race categories are socially constructed, and thus have no biological basis.


Why can't we consider both?
Well, like I said, human nature tends to lead to essentializing which results in pretty reactionary ideas. I prefer to stay away from the concept as a matter of preference. If you want to talk about human nature, and general laws of human (or more broadly social) organization, that's your choice. It's basically the same thing in this context, although talking about social organization does not carry with it the same baggage as "human nature", even though speaking of "laws" of social organization brings with it other types of baggage, such as issues of free will and agency (although on second thought, these might be the same as with "human nature" although framed differently?) We can explore this, if you like.

[PoliticalNightmare]

That is, they don't just show that "powerful people are dicks," they show that ordinary people become dicks when put into positions of power. I think they show us something about human nature, something that is as malleable as it is intrinsic. Would you disagree?

That's not exactly true. At least not in the Milgram study anyway: the experimental subjects weren't given power, they had it taken away from them in that they were ordered by an authoritative figure (the experimenter) to electrocute another person (the learner). I can't remember the exact percentage but something like 95% of people showed signs of distress (e.g. nail biting, shaking, nervous laughter, etc.) and verbally resented the idea when told they had to harm another person but did so anyway.

This seems to suggest that people are extremely obedient rather than just "dicks". That said, I do resent the idea of another person being given economic or political despotism because of the potential that they could be some sort of tyrant.

[Orange Juche]

That's the entire reason we need checks and balances. Why our leaders need to be recallable at a moments notice, and they have a limited time to hold that power.

[Raúl Duke]

Have you all seen the article about how the "future is ruled by BS" or some such?

All the things it says has got me thinking that technology has reached a level beyond capitalism in the sense that capitalism has created unstable and inefficient ad-hoc solutions to these "problems" (i.e. profit problems) of modern day technology. It won't end capitalism by itself, but I think these technology may further perpetuate the conditions that might lead to its fall.
LINK:http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html