an_angerous_engineer

Honestly, that point you made about authoritarianism being the narcissists perfect political expression really resonated.

As I recall, it was @keepthepace@slrpnk.net who actually raised that thought (as a question). I really like how they phrased it: "authoritarianism is the political expression of narcissism". My response was just an elaborate affirmation.

I don’t always frame it that way myself (I tend to talk about domination-seeking behavior or socialized individualism) but I think we’re circling the same core.

There are some benefits to framing things around narcissism (or psychology at the very least) rather than sticking to more vague political/behavioral terms. The biggest one is that you now have an attachment to a scientific field that you can mine for information about how it actually works. It's hard to argue with a Marxist about material conditions changing behavior if we're just talking about bad actors in the abstract, because it's pretty easy to make a fairly convincing-sounding argument based on rational behavior, incentives, and game theory. The argument is actually flawed, though, because with such a vague definition of what a bad actor even is, the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. If you actually manage to map the bad behavior to psychology, though, the situation changes completely, because now the hypothesis is well-defined enough that we can test it - and the psychologists have already done a pretty good job of showing that this isn't how narcissism works at all. (And to be clear, I'm not trying to be mean to Marxists - this just happens to be one of the things that Marx got wrong that people still mistakenly believe. He did the best that he could with the information that he had, and I think he did a lot of good with his writing, but it is simply the nature of scientific advancement that the ideas of the past are sometimes replaced by new and better-supported ones over time).

Having a concrete idea of the cause of all the bad behavior also gives us a much clearer view of the possible set of solutions. We can disregard the detached philosophical musings about human nature in favor of actual scientific studies that show how things really work. This helps us understand why things like education and messaging haven't been effective at changing the behavior of even the minor bad actors (and also explains why it never will), so we can start redirecting our efforts toward activities which might actually have a positive impact (like educating everyone else about these people and teaching them how to avoid them or otherwise protect themselves from them).

I think centralization can easily slip into hierarchy, especially if we don’t design mechanisms of accountability from the start.

Of course. There's lots of reasons for this. People who are naive to narcissistic abuse will often fall for the manipulation and not see how power gets consolidated even when it happens right under their noses. Also, the common-knowledge mechanisms for holding people accountable are, frankly, really ineffective (probably by design, at this point). Power/authority needs to be based on trust, and it needs to be lost at the same instant as the trust that supports it is. The overhead of getting everyone together to hold a vote of no-confidence is way too high. People will be reluctant to do it out of fear of retaliation, because there's basically no way to do it subtly enough to reliably avoid detection by the target of the vote - yet this is essentially the solution that most organizations resort to. We need better tools for holding people accountable that can still be formalized. Perhaps we can use the methods of those pre-civilized egalitarian societies as inspiration or a starting point?

The reason I made this post in the first place is because I think learning to spot domination-seeking behavior could potentially (and should) be as culturally foundational as reading or math. It’s something that I feel like we’re really missing in todays education system if you ask me.

I completely agree with this.

You mentioned narcissists violating epistemic norms. Do you know if there are specific cultural practices or rituals that could make epistemic hygiene emotionally resonant, not just intellectually correct?

I read a long time ago (I don't remember where) that you have to introduce kids to the scientific method by the age of 6 if you want them to respect science as an adult. I've also been seeing a lot more recently that the primary factor in how well a person is able to change their mind in response to new information is actually creativity (rather than intelligence, like you might expect).

I am not convinced that we need to do anything new per se, but it would be good if we actually taught kids about science starting very early, and it would be especially good if we stopped crushing their creativity. If we just had a population that didn't have the capacity to care about truth beaten out of them, I think we'd already be in a much better place.

Something I'd like to note is that, in my experience, the people who actually resist epistemic norms are people who have either a narcissistic streak themselves (I haven't really talked about it, but narcissism is disturbingly common - way more common than you'd probably expect.), or are otherwise not ready to leave an abusive relationship with one (and are desperately trying to deny the reality that they are in such an abusive relationship, and that that relationship will never become the relationship that they wished that they had with said individual(s)). Although others might not be well-versed or practiced in following epistemic norms, I find that they are usually receptive to learning about them. It may be the case that simply eliminating the influence of narcissism from our society is enough to avoid the sort of post-truth nonsense that we're dealing with now.

In most cases, we can assume that the people bound by the social contract agreed to the social contract as a condition of joining the group. In other words, they were not coerced into that behavior, and any penalties that they suffer as a result of violating the social contract are penalties that they agreed to as well (so long as said penalties are also outlined in the contract up front). It seems like coercion because bad actors typically resist the penalties imposed as a consequence of their bad behaviors, but it actually is not, because they agreed to all of it up front.

Things get tricky only when we consider the case where the social contract is imposed upon people who did not agree to it beforehand, which does apply in the case of a society that is doing external policing, or arguably in the case of children - they are subject to rules that they did not choose for themselves. In this case, we are coercing them, and we have to admit this one exception. We avoid the paradox of tolerance so long as the contract only allows society to coerce those individuals who break the rules of the social contract, which otherwise outlaws coercion. To actually justify this set of rules requires now that we reason about some broader objectives, like maximizing freedom or minimizing harm. I would imagine that the exact details of the social contract would end up as the subject of an ongoing discussion due to the difficult and sometimes ambiguous nature of the underlying objectives, though I still think that the amount of variation that we would see between different (non-narcissistic) groups would end up being rather small. This is the sort of thing that should be refined over time as we learn more about ourselves, our world, and how we would best fit into it.

I love it when people start asking the right questions. I think the absolute mess of responses just goes to show that this is an avenue of discussion that hasn't been pursued nearly enough in leftist circles.

We've interacted before - you may remember my comments on an earlier post of yours. I am generally of the position that narcissism lies at the core of all of the issues that anarchism is fundamentally trying to solve. If we can solve the issue of narcissism in society, then everything else more or less falls into place (though there are a lot of misconception about what is and is not hierarchy that gets in the way of seeing that for a lot of people, apparently - I'll try to address some of that).

What if we started seriously discussing tactics for dealing with domination-seeking behavior?

Since we can reduce our political/social problems down to this particular psychological problem (or at least I claim that we can, more or less), then we can try to understand hoe we might address those political/social problems by understanding how one addresses this psychological problem. Unfortunately, we immediately run into a bit of a trouble. There is no known effective treatment for this personality type/disorder. When we consider that we're talking about trying to change a person's personality, this sort of make sense, and it make additional sense when we consider that impaired empathy generally shows up on a brain scan as a sort of brain damage. In other words, our options are severely limited at the individual level. We also know that this personality type is extremely stable over the lifetime of the individual.

There are lots of things we might be able to argue from that position, but one point that I really want to highlight is that we cannot expect that we can make this problem go away simply by changing the material or social conditions of these people. Even a dedicated therapy effort doesn't really work. While we can largely prevent the creation of these individuals in the first place if we were to create the right social/cultural environment (most are made as infants and children by a variety of bad parenting practices), we cannot completely prevent them from occurring (some are simply born this way - about 1% of the population as I had said before). As such, the solution to this problem isn't going to be a simple change in initial conditions, but rather an ongoing process that is baked into the fabric of society itself.

Let me touch on the issue of how we went from a bunch of societies that existed for millions of years while reliably and robustly preventing these people from gaining power and making a mess of things to a society that is basically run exclusively by these people and seems designed to empower them. As you know but others may not yet be aware, I have a hypothesis about how hierarchical civilization came to be. What's important to observe about this narrative is that the peaceful egalitarian societies did not voluntarily become hierarchical. They were coerced/conquered by hierarchical societies that formed from the aggregation of their exiles. This story of hierarchical societies devouring egalitarian ones via conquest and subjugation then repeats itself over and over again throughout history. A question for the room: Is there any documented instance of an egalitarian anarchist society voluntarily reforming itself to become hierarchical?

My basis for anarchism is fundamentally founded in this perspective that narcissism is the root problem to address. IMO, the indigenous people largely did a good job - they just made the mistake of externalizing their narcissism problems, and then the additional mistake of failing to prepare for the consequences of that decision. We just need to learn from their mistakes, and do what they did not: In addition to aggressively policing the narcissists that emerge from within, we need to account and prepare for the external threat represented by narcissistic individuals that exist outside of our society. Even a society that solves the exile problem for itself will still have to deal with the exile problem from others, and that generally means maintaining a strong military or otherwise maintaining some mechanism for defending itself against organized threats from hierarchical societies.

What mechanisms help us identify and isolate that kind of behavior without reproducing the same old coercive structures?

Identifying these bad behaviors is both easy and hard. If you know what to look for, it's really easy. If you don't, you're liable to fall for their manipulation. Simply learning about the various manipulative behaviors that narcissists engage in is the conceptually most straight-forward way to address this problem, and it is certainly effective. There are other ways, though. One thing that I've noticed is that narcissists will pretty reliably violate the rules of epistemologically sound argumentation whenever they start to try something funny. Simply educating people about logic (and logical fallacies) and the burden of proof would go a long way toward making them resilient to narcissistic manipulation. If we also teach people to take such violations very seriously, rather than just dismissing it with a simple "everyone is entitled to their own opinion", we would catch a lot of bullshit very early and stop a lot of narcissistic machination before it has a chance to gain any real traction. If you think about it, tolerance of unsound argumentation is a necessary condition for a society to be vulnerable to non-violent manipulation from bad actors of any sort.

How do we build systems that are resilient to sabotage without falling into authoritarian logic?

I'm seeing a lot of people in the comments conflating centralization with hierarchy, and vice-versa, and this is a big problem. I want to make something very clear: Centralization does NOT imply hierarchy. This is very important to understand, as discarding the useful tool that is centralization out of fear of creating the horrible monster that is hierarchy will cripple our ability to achieve anything at all. But what is centralization? What is hierarchy? Why do people conflate the two?

Centralization is simply what happens when coordination or decision-making is delegated to a subset of the group. These coordinators or decision-makers take on apparently central roles because everybody needs the information/instruction that they provide in order to avoid doing redundant or pointless work. Centralization is desirable, because it means that people can specialize. Not everyone has to be involved in every process. Decisions can be made by those who are most qualified to make them, and everybody else can get on with their work without being interrupted about every little detail.

Hierarchy is what you get when you define an up-and-down axis of power. Some people are above others. Some people are below others. The people above have the power/authority to coerce the people below. Subordination is a crime that is basically defined as an individual defying the directives of an individual above them in the hierarchy. The existence of hierarchy does not strictly depend upon the existence of a particular social or governance structure within a group.

That said, hierarchies naturally tend to concentrate decision-making power in the hands of a few, and that's why hierarchy always seems to imply centralization in practice. It's hard to find examples of centralization that do not come with the trappings of hierarchy and coercion - you basically have to study the inner-workings of some worker-owned co-ops to find good examples. Combined with the fact that coercion is a concept that isn't part of common discourse (though I think that is starting to change), and it becomes easier to see why people might struggle to separate the two concepts.

We can have all of the benefits of centralized coordination without any of the drawbacks of hierarchy. We just need to establish a binding social contract that outlaws coercion, and aggressively enforce it. With these tools in hand, building public institutions or even a powerful military capable of rivaling modern civilization's best is all comfortably within the realm of possibility.

Could it be that authoritarianism is the political expression of narcissism and that there is literally nothing else there?

I believe that this is actually the case. There are plenty of studies showing strong correlation between political ideology and personality traits. In my personal experience, I've yet to meet someone with authoritarian politics who was not also lacking in empathy more generally.

I think that there is even more to it than that, though. There is a really interesting anthropological perspective on this to be had, where we can actually cast the development of authoritarian styles of governance as an expression of narcissism.

When we look at the actual timeline for the emergence of civilization, we see agriculture, then violence (increasingly organized as time goes on) then governance structures that resemble modern states. This is an account of the development of violence in northwestern Europe to help establish that timeline. That paper also cites other papers about the history of violence in other regions. Contrary to the popular narrative (thanks Hobbes /s), we don't actually see much evidence of violence at all prior to the development of agriculture. It is important to note that agriculture was developed about 40k years ago in response to a major worldwide drought that lasted about 1k years. (I would recommend reading "Civilized to Death" by Christopher Ryan for more on this topic.) Most sources arguing that pre-civilized society was terribly violent points at societies that existed in the 20k years between the development of agriculture and the emergence of modern-ish states (which, in some cases, were terribly violent). The traditional narrative about civilization and war would put the emergence of states before the invention of organized warfare, arguing that warfare was a response to the increasing complexity and scale of the conflicts that arose from the increased societal complexity of states. Archaeological evidence refutes this, so what gives?

There's more that makes this weird. We also know some things about how pre-civlized societies handled narcissism. Surprisingly often, these societies actually had a dedicated word for these people. The exact translation and connotation of the word varied from one population to the next, but the stories that they told were basically the same. (For reference, we learned this by interviewing members of indigenous societies that had not yet been heavily influenced by civilization. Some of these societies still existed as recently as a century ago - now there are almost none left.) These were the people who were 'unteachable', 'lazy', 'troublemakers' - they caused drama while contributing next to nothing. When these people didn't improve their behavior (or they did something heinous like commit murder or rape), they were exiled or killed. (Check out literature on 'rape-free' societies if you want to read more about this.) These individuals were pretty rare - around 1% of the population - so what little violence was necessary to keep the peace would not account for the evidence that we see from post-agricultural societies. We've no reason to believe that these pre-civilized societies suddenly stopped policing themselves when they were pushed into agriculture by the drought (and there's even some evidence that they did not - again, see "Civilized to Death"), yet the vast majority of us now live in a society where such a penalty for mere narcissism would be unthinkable.

Here's what I speculate happened. After settling down for agriculture, exile stopped being as lethal as it would have been before. Exiles could practice agriculture on their own and survive, when they wouldn't have been able to before (due to lack of technology, mostly). Also, stationary groups with fields that they can't watch literally 100% of the time and stores of food (they wouldn't have been storing much food prior to agriculture) are much easier to steal from. As such, we started to accumulate a population of these narcissistic individuals. These individuals are inherently self-centered and lazy. If they settled together (which they would have been incentivized to do, for many reasons), they would inevitably try to dominate each other in an attempt to gain power and status and the ability to exploit the labor power of the other exiles for their own personal gain. They would actually have a chance to learn ways of sneaking into other societies and hiding their toxic behavior with clever words. They could actually start working together as a violent force to bully whole other groups into submission, or even claim control of an area. Incidentally, we actually have some evidence that this sort of thing happened pretty early in the game with a riverhead and a group of bullies demanding tribute in exchange for access. These riverheads were an important source of easy food thanks to the salmon that would swim up there to reproduce, so this was a big deal. Here's an interview with an anthropologist who talks about that.

Naturally, these narcissists aren't very good at maintaining power over each other or their less-narcissistic peers in the beginning, but as time progresses, they would get better and better at it. They'd learn to pit different groups against each other so that no one group can get large enough to overthrow the minority that holds power (+ the other still-loyal groups). They'd learn that growing their population as fast as possible gives them a major edge over other societies, as it is far easier to bully other groups into submission when you outnumber them. Pretty much every major development in human history related to governance and economics gets cast in a new light with this perspective. Money becomes an ingenious solution to the problem of redistributing tribute/favors to one's cronies in order to keep them under control. The state monopoly on violence is the perfect hypocrisy for protecting one's own power with force while denying anybody else's right to do the same, regardless of where the threat to their power comes from. Not only does this allow you to crush any direct rebellion before it happens, but it also allows you to interfere in the development of various political groups, allowing you to maintain control over the entire political playing field. Capitalism becomes a brilliant way of taking power away from more rigid power structures like the church or the throne without needing to foment a violent rebellion.

A few other fun things result from such a narrative. The cause of sexism and the general disrespect for the rights and intelligence of children becomes obvious. Since all power ultimately comes from the use of force, women and children are at an inherent disadvantage compared to men due to their smaller size and lower physical strength. Forcing women to be breeders for that sweet sweet population growth was also a major contributor to their objectification. Agriculture was hard work, and the narcissistic men didn't want to do it, so their wives/children became de-facto slaves. (Note: Slave labor would not have existed prior to the development of these narcissistic societies.) Religious and racial discrimination is fundamentally about preventing foreign powers from interfering with local affairs, while also providing a convenient justification for using those out-groups as additional sources of slave labor. Also, we realize that literally no form of governance that has ever been invented since the development of the state has ever been designed to actually serve the people. They've always been various forms of compromise designed to consolidate and maintain power for the few while preventing the many from organizing a competent rebellion. The only form of governance that has ever existed to serve the people is anarchism, in the form of the aggressive egalitarianism practiced by pre-civilized societies. This isn't to say that we should go back to doing things exactly like we did in the stone age, but it does turn a lot of long-standing cultural assumptions about the nature governance and modern society on their head.

I could keep going, but I'll stop for now. This perspective is a real mind-bender, but way too many things fit into place when you think about history this way. It also makes sense that authoritarianism would be an invention of narcissism generally if authoritarianism was simply the political expression of narcissism on the individual level.

Pretty much everything on the topic by Dr. Ramani (Here's her YouTube channel) is worth looking at. I recommend starting here. She has also published a couple of books on the topic which are also good, and generally consolidate a lot of what she has on other platforms in one place, though her most up-to-date thinking on the matter will pretty much always be on her YouTube channel and podcast. Here's her website so that you can find everything else. If you read any of her books, "Don't you know who I am?" is probably the most relevant one here.

What you'll get from her is mostly information on the nature and behavior of narcissists themselves. The primary value of this information is that you'll be able to spot narcissists and narcissistic behaviors way more easily (and thus, way more frequently) than you would otherwise be able to. We've been culturally conditioned to ignore or even justify a lot of narcissistic behaviors, so learning about them is a big eye-opener for seeing just how prevalent the problem is. Simply being able to recognize narcissistic behavior for what it is will go a very long way in helping you see things from my perspective.

You can also talk to me about this kind of stuff if you want. The intersection of narcissism and politics/economics is something I spend a lot of time thinking about. I actually can't point at anyone else on the internet who is writing about this sort of thing.

I appreciate that someone is trying to have a real conversation about this kind of thing. I don't think leftists have enough conversations where they're acknowledging the actual sources of conflict within their ranks.

I have a little experience with moderation (including in leftist spaces), and one of the things that I've found to be really helpful in understanding these sorts of problems is actually the modern theory of narcissism. A lot has been learned in the last decade about what happens when a person's empathy is physiologically impaired, and understanding this personality pattern is immensely helpful in navigating interpersonal conflicts at all scales. Tankies as you describe them are actually one of the more clear-cut cases of a narcissistic subculture within the left. The constant abuse of language, bad-faith argumentation, hypersensitivity to ideological or personal criticism of any kind, the dismissal of any legitimate concerns or established facts that would threaten their apparent worldview, etc... This is all classic narcissistic argumentation.

And somewhere along the way, that desire got calcified into a set of talking points. It got buried under defensiveness and online clout games. The pain turned inward, and now they lash out at anyone who doesn’t match their script. That’s not an excuse. But it is something to hold with empathy.

Unfortunately, this narrative is simply wrong. One of the things that you really have to understand about these sorts of people is that the cause and effect between their arguments and their beliefs is reversed from what you would expect. They do not believe things because they buy the arguments that they were given. They hold beliefs abut what is and is not acceptable because of how they want to be allowed to behave and what rights and privileges they feel they deserve, and then they seek out a narrative/ideology that allows them to justify all of that. We're not dealing with people who are making decisions based on any sort of rational process. We're dealing with people who are trying to find palatable justifications for them getting whatever it is that they want (power, status, accolades, etc...). The lack of empathy comes first!

The reason that some of these people find themselves in the left is that they can often misconstrue arguments in favor of broad freedom for all into justifications for a system of 'governance' where there is no such thing as personal accountability (at least for them, personally). This is where you get your anarcho-nihilists who don't want any sort of rule-enforcement structures at all, or anarcho-capitalists who believe that rules should be enforced by the people who can pay the private militias to enforce them (and they, of course, would be the sort of people who could afford such a service). Tankies lean on their disordered trait of 'living in their future success' more than most - believing that they will somehow rise to the top (or somewhere near it) of whatever authoritarian regime they're advocating for, essentially escaping any sort of accountability and holding absolute power, all while appealing to the desire for liberation from the disenfranchised.

If you don't believe me, then here's an experiment for you. Try to have a conversation about accountability with anyone who is acting suspect like this. Ask them about what sorts of systems of accountability they would like to see in a society, and ask them about where they see themselves fitting into that system. Ask them how they think that system should respond to some of their sketchier behaviors. Accountability is the #1 enemy of any narcissist. The responses you'll get will be absolutely insane.