Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Psychology Podcast with doctor Scott
Speaker 1: Barry Kaufman, where we give you insights into the mind, brain, behavior,
Speaker 1: and creativity. Each episode will feature a new guest who
Speaker 1: will stimulate your mind and give you a greater understanding
Speaker 1: of yourself, others, and the world we live in. Hopefully
Speaker 1: we'll also provide a glimpse into human possibility. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening and enjoy the podcast. Sin Today, I'm really excited
Speaker 1: to have doctor Keltner on the podcast. Doctor is a
Speaker 1: professor of psychology the University of California, Berkeley and the
Speaker 1: founding director of the University's Greater Good Science Center. Keltner
Speaker 1: has devoted his career of studying the nature of human
Speaker 1: goodness and happiness, conducting groundbreaking research on compassion, all laughter,
Speaker 1: and love. He is the author of the best selling
Speaker 1: book Born to Be Good, and his latest book, which
Speaker 1: we will be discussing today, is called The Power Paradox,
Speaker 1: How We Gain and Lose Influence. Hey, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for being on the show twice. It's good being with
Speaker 1: you again, Scott. Yeah, I always enjoyed chatting with you,
Speaker 1: and I thought, you know, last time we focused more
Speaker 1: on your work on all after and love. I thought,
Speaker 1: you know, today, particularly under a certain political climate we're
Speaker 1: living in, but maybe we could talk about power. Yeah,
Speaker 1: very timely, isn't it. Yeah? It is. Can you please
Speaker 1: start by defining what you mean by power? Yeah, so
Speaker 1: very simply by power eye and then the social scientific
Speaker 1: field mean your capacity to influence another person, your capacity
Speaker 1: to change their minds or their actions or their feelings.
Speaker 1: So it's really about influence. So this is a really
Speaker 1: interesting definition of power that is very broad and could
Speaker 1: encompass different motives for that. Yeah. Yeah, you know, Scott.
Speaker 1: When I started reading about power years ago, people in
Speaker 1: the scientific literature thought about it as politics. Right, do
Speaker 1: you have access to political decision making? Is money and wealth?
Speaker 1: And as a psychologist like you, I felt frustrated with
Speaker 1: that definition because A those definitions of powers politics or
Speaker 1: money or military might don't help us understand the power
Speaker 1: politics and families and in romantic partnerships or friendships. And
Speaker 1: then b I think they really do a disservice to
Speaker 1: those definitions as powers, money, and might in politics in
Speaker 1: understanding how societies change. Right, there is enormous innovation and
Speaker 1: social change and societal movement that's brought about by people
Speaker 1: who don't have a lot of money, who don't have
Speaker 1: military might, but they lead to civil rights movement, they
Speaker 1: create the Internet. So I wanted to broaden, Like you say,
Speaker 1: are thinking about power, Yeah, and that definition encompasses the
Speaker 1: whole spectrum of wine alter to the states of others
Speaker 1: in a way that gives you like complete control over them,
Speaker 1: to wanting to alter the states of others. I'm trying
Speaker 1: to think of the quid opposite of that spectrum would
Speaker 1: be in a way that is uplifting to everyone, really
Speaker 1: spectacular observation. In fact, that's where we're going with our research,
Speaker 1: which is, once you think about power is just your
Speaker 1: capacity to influence the people around you and then the
Speaker 1: people they influence. You can array the ways in which
Speaker 1: we influence on a demandsion or continuum. And on one
Speaker 1: side is the coercive, bullying, Machiavelian sociopathic tendencies right, And
Speaker 1: on the other side is what a really profile more
Speaker 1: in the book, which I think we're moving slowly toward,
Speaker 1: which is ways of empowering other people, sharing resources, building
Speaker 1: strong social networks that get you power, so you can
Speaker 1: really start to make sense of the different strategies by
Speaker 1: which we gain power. Well, that's interesting, so you said
Speaker 1: sharing resources. So sharing resources versus grabbing resources seems to
Speaker 1: be the core in distinction, right, Yeah, you know, and
Speaker 1: it's really counterintuitive and people don't realize. But once you
Speaker 1: start to think about it deeply, the really revealing examples
Speaker 1: come to mind, which is that you know, at hunter
Speaker 1: gatherer societies, it's really the individual who shares the most
Speaker 1: who has the highest standing. There are studies of teenagers
Speaker 1: in the United States and it's the kid And this
Speaker 1: shocks parents. Right, it's the kid who's kind and breaks
Speaker 1: up conflicts and helps other kids who has the highest
Speaker 1: status in that group when you get to great acts
Speaker 1: of leadership in the work world. Right. Jim Collins in
Speaker 1: his book From Good to Great talks about the final
Speaker 1: stage of leadership as service is really bringing out the
Speaker 1: good in others as your pathway to power. So I
Speaker 1: think there's surprising support for this idea. I agree, and
Speaker 1: I'm wondering how you link this. I'm sure you're aware
Speaker 1: of the distinction and the evolutionary psychology literature between authentic
Speaker 1: pride and hebristic pride as two different paths to social status.
Speaker 1: You could equally say they're two different paths to power, right. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: what a terrific connection, Scott. You know, it's great to
Speaker 1: you know, and this is just new thinking in the
Speaker 1: last couple of years that the evolutionary world of people
Speaker 1: like Jeess Tracy and Joey Chang and Joseph Henrick, they're
Speaker 1: talking about two paths to power, right, and one is
Speaker 1: domination and manipulation, pinning people down right or tricking them,
Speaker 1: and then the other is means by what you gain
Speaker 1: status and respect. And I think that's a fair summary
Speaker 1: that in some context, if you're working in a Mexican
Speaker 1: drug cartel or you're dealing arms, it's all about domination
Speaker 1: and tricking people and coersion and threat right. And by contrast,
Speaker 1: if you're working in a hospital or in a biotech
Speaker 1: firm or the like, more often it's about, you know,
Speaker 1: doing things that gain you status, like doing great work
Speaker 1: and building strong ties. So do you think that the
Speaker 1: feeling of pride, like the evolved feeling itself, is the
Speaker 1: same feeling that like a mob boss feels when they
Speaker 1: kill an underling who's disrespected them as the person who
Speaker 1: helps change the world and sort of like sees a huge,
Speaker 1: grandiose impact that they made in the world. Is it
Speaker 1: the same feeling? Yeah? You know, I think that in
Speaker 1: this we should study that subjective quality whether or not
Speaker 1: that's the same feeling it is, and I think that
Speaker 1: you're going to find both similarities and differences. Right, So,
Speaker 1: you know, the structure of pride, as Jess Tracy has shown,
Speaker 1: just like feeling like I've done good things, I have strength,
Speaker 1: I'm high in a social hierarchy is common to hubristic, arrogant,
Speaker 1: narcissistic pride, and then this more authentic pride. But that
Speaker 1: kind of the arrogant narcissism and is really the kind
Speaker 1: of feeling of stature that we have to worry about.
Speaker 1: And I write about in the Power Paradox, which is
Speaker 1: the minute your sense of pride and success and wealth
Speaker 1: and you know, making it in the world world is
Speaker 1: accompanied by beliefs like Wow, I'm really fundamentally better than
Speaker 1: other people, or I should really dominate the world. These
Speaker 1: other people are second rate, You're in trouble, right, And
Speaker 1: one worries about the current political climate with this distinction
Speaker 1: in mind, and what we really should be looking for
Speaker 1: where the subjective differences really are matters. Authentic pride, I think,
Speaker 1: always is accompanied by a sense of other people's contributions
Speaker 1: to your work, right, your place within a broader tradition
Speaker 1: or a historical narrative. So I think there are subjective
Speaker 1: differences between these two kinds of pride that helps speak
Speaker 1: a lot to the problems of power. I love that
Speaker 1: I wanted to think through for a moment without trying
Speaker 1: to change people who they are, Like, what if you
Speaker 1: are the type of person you know, if we talk
Speaker 1: interpersonal circumplex, what if you are you know, so strong
Speaker 1: on the social dominance side and very low on love?
Speaker 1: I mean, is there a place for you in the world?
Speaker 1: The thing is, are you telling people they should change
Speaker 1: who they are? Like maybe they could make a great
Speaker 1: contribution in sports or certain leadership positions. Do you see
Speaker 1: what I'm saying? Like? Is it always the authentic pride wins?
Speaker 1: You know? No, not at all? You know? And I
Speaker 1: think that what I write about in The Power Paradox
Speaker 1: is in in the last fifty years, and this is
Speaker 1: worked by Elis Eggley and her colleagues, We've moved from
Speaker 1: a more social dominance domineering, coercive form of power top
Speaker 1: down to a more horizontal, empowering, collaborative form of power. Right. So,
Speaker 1: in general, the data show if you're more collaborative and
Speaker 1: empathetic you'll fare pretty well. But there are places for
Speaker 1: pure assertive, domineering power. Right when I talk to, for example,
Speaker 1: business groups, and some of them are doing really complicated
Speaker 1: negotiations with like Russians. Right, it's good to have a
Speaker 1: domineering type on your team. I think you're suggesting it's
Speaker 1: good to have somebody on your team who does takes
Speaker 1: no crap from anybody else and will be forceful. Right.
Speaker 1: There are interesting speculations about sports teams about it's great
Speaker 1: to collaborate like the Warriors do, but it's also good
Speaker 1: to have an enforcer who's like you, you push my
Speaker 1: guy around, I'm coming after you. Right. So, I think
Speaker 1: in general we find that a mixture of strategies is good.
Speaker 1: It's good to be able to fight fire with fire
Speaker 1: if somebody is bullying you, to stand up to bullying
Speaker 1: like that with calmness but strength. But in general, there
Speaker 1: is this trend towards greater collaboration in the politics of
Speaker 1: power these days. You're saying that in politics the stays
Speaker 1: there's a trend towards which side. Did you say, Well,
Speaker 1: what I meant is in a lot of different sectors, right,
Speaker 1: So in workplace organizations, in hospital settings, in school settings,
Speaker 1: there's more powers, more bi directional, it's horizontal. The one
Speaker 1: exception I was going to say, wait a minute, is
Speaker 1: politics of the day, where there has been this rise
Speaker 1: or return of more top down authoritarian power, which we're
Speaker 1: worried about. Yeah, you know, it just seems to me
Speaker 1: like there are certain people would really love in sports
Speaker 1: and reality TV, and but that's just really that's not
Speaker 1: what we when as a president of the United States, like,
Speaker 1: you know, I think to myself, you know, I have
Speaker 1: watched I've been a big fan of Michael Jordan's career.
Speaker 1: But a lot of people say that what he does
Speaker 1: on that on the field, you know, on the basketball
Speaker 1: court is a kin to like psychopathy, you know, like
Speaker 1: he bullies, he intimidates others, he's vengeful. His number one
Speaker 1: thing is to win and kick, but not only win,
Speaker 1: but kill. You know. So now look, we love that
Speaker 1: and admire that as a society when we watch him
Speaker 1: on the thing in the context of United president, can
Speaker 1: you imagine if Michael Jornan was President of the United States,
Speaker 1: I mean, and he had that same attitude. He would
Speaker 1: not want that for that position. So I just think
Speaker 1: so much is so and textual, you know, And you
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying, Yeah, yeah, I mean, Scott, your
Speaker 1: observation is so fundamental for your audience to really dwell upon,
Speaker 1: which is that you know, we have these stereotypes of
Speaker 1: what it means to be powerful, right, and they're influenced
Speaker 1: by Machiavelli in this five hundred year old legacy of power,
Speaker 1: And Machiavelli wrote in the most violent time in human history,
Speaker 1: and it was a theory of power about manipulation and
Speaker 1: coercion for very violent times. And then we think of
Speaker 1: power stereotypically by invoking images of really exceptional people. Michael
Speaker 1: Jordan is a one in a billion person in terms
Speaker 1: of basketball skills, right, But real facts are, how do
Speaker 1: we influence in our families, how do we influence in
Speaker 1: our romantic partnerships, How do when the rest of us
Speaker 1: and not Michael Jordan, go to work, how do we
Speaker 1: get things done? How do we get things done as
Speaker 1: a member of a community or a school, And they're
Speaker 1: data are really a counterpoint to the Michael Jordan model
Speaker 1: of power, which is you get more done collaboratively. Right,
Speaker 1: And even nowadays they're finding, you know that financial firms
Speaker 1: and governments that have more collaborative members get a lot
Speaker 1: more work done and they're better for the bottom line. Right.
Speaker 1: So I think we really, as you are doing, we
Speaker 1: have to question the image of power. And it is
Speaker 1: not Donald Trump anymore. Right, It is much more likely
Speaker 1: to be a woman today, much more likely to be
Speaker 1: a person of a different ethnic background, and we have
Speaker 1: to embrace the shift and power that Trump is a
Speaker 1: reaction to. I think that's right, and I think I'm
Speaker 1: also trying to make another point that I really am
Speaker 1: not articulating well, but as you're talking, I think I'm
Speaker 1: able to better do that now. And that's you know
Speaker 1: that there still is a fundamental human drive for this
Speaker 1: heboristic pride. It's still hard, it's within us, and I
Speaker 1: think when we watch sports, or we watch like wrestling,
Speaker 1: or we watch it allows us to vicariously get it
Speaker 1: out of our system, you know, the winning losing mentality,
Speaker 1: which is the extreme of the dominant side of the
Speaker 1: interpersonal circumplex. It's still a fundamental human need. It's not
Speaker 1: like the US first them. You know, It's not like, oh,
Speaker 1: we have the narcissists and then we have the rest
Speaker 1: of us. We yeah, well but yeah, so I just
Speaker 1: feel like there are certain things that offer healthy vicarious
Speaker 1: Like we watch reality TV. We like you know, you're fired.
Speaker 1: I mean, Trump was popular for a reason, right, but
Speaker 1: now he's not popular for a reason. It's interesting to
Speaker 1: think about that, do you know what I mean? He
Speaker 1: was popular for a reason within a particular context, and
Speaker 1: that's what got him elected. And now he's in this
Speaker 1: different context and the same traits are not. So I
Speaker 1: think the segues to your power paradox is that, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a terrific segue, you know. So it's kind of
Speaker 1: the inverse. Actually, it's kind of the inverse. Trump is
Speaker 1: the inverse of your power paradox. He is, he is
Speaker 1: the inverse, which is he rose to power encounterintuitive ways,
Speaker 1: but now he's falling fortily. Yeah. So you know, and
Speaker 1: I really appreciate your point, Scott. And one of the
Speaker 1: points of the power paradox and all the studies we've
Speaker 1: been doing for twenty years is that it isn't just
Speaker 1: the weirdos or the sociopaths who can get into trouble
Speaker 1: with power. Right. Our lab study show you take any
Speaker 1: human being and you give them some power, and they
Speaker 1: start to have that hubristic pride. They feel they're a
Speaker 1: little bit better than other people, and they feel the
Speaker 1: surges of desire like I want this or I want
Speaker 1: to sleep with that personal I want more money, right,
Speaker 1: and we get into trouble, and our studies show, just
Speaker 1: like you say, like, this is just a human thing
Speaker 1: to misuse power. And when you have power, you're more
Speaker 1: likely to lie to people and cheat in games and
Speaker 1: take candy in a lab study that was meant for kids,
Speaker 1: and drive like a maniac, you know, blazing through the
Speaker 1: pedestrian zone. So this is a really we all have
Speaker 1: done this, right, We've all misused power. It's not just
Speaker 1: the nuts who do it. It's really a human tendency.
Speaker 1: And so that then brings in, you know, this question
Speaker 1: of the paradox of power, which is we rise to
Speaker 1: power through lots of good things in human nature, and
Speaker 1: then we can misuse it. And I think the lesson
Speaker 1: of Trump is that is a lesson of how we
Speaker 1: keep using power well, which is you got to watch
Speaker 1: it because other people are going to hold you accountable.
Speaker 1: Your reputation's going to fall. Your influence in the distal sense,
Speaker 1: like the US reputation in the United States outside of
Speaker 1: the United States right now has just fallen, has plummeted
Speaker 1: as a result of these kind of impulsive behaviors of
Speaker 1: Trump where people literally don't take his set seriously on
Speaker 1: the international stage anymore. It's going to cost us dearly.
Speaker 1: And those are the reminders of the power paradox of
Speaker 1: not misusing the power we earn with good works to
Speaker 1: stay close to the better side to our human nature. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's such an important reminder for all of
Speaker 1: us when we get power what it can do to us.
Speaker 1: Dopamine is really addictive, you know, in that circumplex. You know,
Speaker 1: my colleague Colin de Young has been doing some great
Speaker 1: work on personality neuroscience showing that if you're really high
Speaker 1: on that social dominance thing, that's pure dopamine. It it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily aggression by you know. The thing is, it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily testosterone. That's more when you get the antagonism,
Speaker 1: which is the left side of that circle. But when
Speaker 1: you're just straight up social dominance, which is just orthogonal
Speaker 1: to love. That's straight up like pure dopamine. And I
Speaker 1: think that's the point you're trying to make. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: you know that literature really guide this thinking about the
Speaker 1: abuses of power, Scott, which is dopamine is about going
Speaker 1: after things that you crave and desire, as you know,
Speaker 1: really well, going after this I do not you personally,
Speaker 1: you know, flirting with somebody so that it leads to
Speaker 1: a sexual tryst, you know, getting involved in drugs, wanting
Speaker 1: more money, wanting to take money. That's all dopamine addictive behavior,
Speaker 1: you know, Scott. When I started to do this work
Speaker 1: on power, there are two things that really struck me
Speaker 1: when I watched the behavior of people who are really
Speaker 1: feeling the surges of power. One is how much they
Speaker 1: look like addicts. They just wanted more, there was no
Speaker 1: constrain on what they wanted. They look like they're dopamine driven.
Speaker 1: And regrettably, and this has actually been verified by science,
Speaker 1: they look like people who had had brain damage. Right.
Speaker 1: There are studies showing if you damage the frontal lobes
Speaker 1: parts of the frontal lobes, you act impulsively, You swear
Speaker 1: at people, you make sexual passes, you are greedy. And
Speaker 1: there are studies by superindero Obi at McMaster University showing
Speaker 1: when I feel powerful, it disengages my frontal lobes, you
Speaker 1: know so, and I write about this in the paragraphs.
Speaker 1: So that's a really problematic mixture of being addicted to
Speaker 1: dopamine minus your frontal lobes. It's such a good point,
Speaker 1: And you know, I find it interesting that there's like
Speaker 1: Colin and others are trying to map out this two
Speaker 1: different dopamine pathways. One that's more related to what we're
Speaker 1: talking about, which depetitive rewards which are very ancestral like status, money,
Speaker 1: and power. But then there's also a newer evolved pathway
Speaker 1: project with the projections to the prefrontal cortex itself, which
Speaker 1: is more about the reward value of information. It's curio
Speaker 1: eing curiosity and the reward so not the reward value
Speaker 1: of competitive rewards, but the reward value of understanding, yeah,
Speaker 1: and reducing information. And I feel like I'm a dopamine
Speaker 1: junkie on that second one. Like I'll admit it, I'm
Speaker 1: a doping junky when it comes to cure, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why we're having this conversation to begin with,
Speaker 1: and maybe you are too totally keeps too late at
Speaker 1: night and it keeps been returning to your show, Scott. Well,
Speaker 1: it's really interesting and this and this may be a
Speaker 1: way to think about the upside to power and the
Speaker 1: downside to power. The downside to power is when you
Speaker 1: hyperactivate that older dopamine system that you're talking about, which
Speaker 1: just makes you swear at people and make sexual passes
Speaker 1: and get greedy. But maybe the upside to power is
Speaker 1: the social side that you're talking about and on that
Speaker 1: you know, it's so interesting. I hadn't made this connection
Speaker 1: until he brought it up. An A Guinotte in Europe
Speaker 1: has these great studies showing when I feel powerful. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm too driven by my own fleshy desires. But the
Speaker 1: upside is I really can look at social situations and
Speaker 1: know like, this is the most socially important thing to
Speaker 1: do right here, right this is the most valuable social
Speaker 1: course of action, like my team to work on this
Speaker 1: part of the problem or you know, solve that conflict.
Speaker 1: So maybe that's the rewarding side to power that we
Speaker 1: need to bring into focus. I wish I had known
Speaker 1: about that before writing The Power Paradox. Well, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: this is this is I'm really glad to write this covertion.
Speaker 1: And did I hear you say that you listen to
Speaker 1: the psychology podcast? Yeah, did you just say that, like
Speaker 1: about three minutes ago. Yes, like it just processed that.
Speaker 1: I am. I'm incredibly honored that that is true. Well,
Speaker 1: every now and then I need new sources of wisdom.
Speaker 1: I just got a dopamine hit by you saying that,
Speaker 1: I am. It's true, it's true. Well, you know, this
Speaker 1: is I mean, we can really get like nuanced here
Speaker 1: in a way that might be fun. You know. The
Speaker 1: extra version domain is comprised of two main facets social
Speaker 1: dominance slash assertiveness, but also social affiliation or social vitality.
Speaker 1: They're correlated with each other, but the vitality facet is
Speaker 1: the only one that's correlated with compassion, whereas the dominance
Speaker 1: one is actually uncorrelated with compassion. So that's an interesting
Speaker 1: example that when you look at the subfacets, actually the
Speaker 1: technically the aspects, the two aspects of extraversion. There's one
Speaker 1: aspect of extra version that is linked to the agreeableness
Speaker 1: specifically compassion to mean and another one that's like pure dopamine.
Speaker 1: So there's one that's like wanting and liking, and there's
Speaker 1: one that's just wanting system. Yeah, that's relevant here, Yeah,
Speaker 1: very relevant, and what a terrific observation. You know, there
Speaker 1: are sixty year seventy studies and we've done some of
Speaker 1: them that if you are extroverted, you will rise in
Speaker 1: the ranks as a school kid in a dorm and
Speaker 1: a fraternity sorority, sports team, military unit, in the workplace.
Speaker 1: That social effervescence of extraversion gets you status and power.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, when I asked Oliver John
Speaker 1: about this and he and I published on this, you know,
Speaker 1: and he's pre eminent figure in this Big five world,
Speaker 1: he said, it really is the social affiliate of connective
Speaker 1: side to extraversion that's driving these resultsful, and I think
Speaker 1: that will be a great frontier for more research. Scott, beautiful.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you there's one area of research I'd
Speaker 1: love to do more on which relates to this. It
Speaker 1: seems like there's a cluster of the Big Five when
Speaker 1: you look at the aspect level that's not just it's
Speaker 1: like a triad, which I'm realizing there's a social effervescence.
Speaker 1: I love the way you put that. I'm going to
Speaker 1: call that now social effervescence, compassion. And the third one
Speaker 1: is creative openness. Yeah. See this triad and I would
Speaker 1: say that's like the ultimate triad for positive social change. Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1: And there are you know, they're really cool meta analyses
Speaker 1: showing that openness piece that you've just introduced creativity. I'm
Speaker 1: curious about things. Open mindedness drives power in business contexts,
Speaker 1: which is very sensible but very important. Right. It's not
Speaker 1: as important in the military context, for example, either structured units,
Speaker 1: but boy is it important in driving innovation and positive
Speaker 1: social change in the business world. Oh this is great.
Speaker 1: This is really exciting linkages. I feel so honored to
Speaker 1: be able to talk to you. Yeah, I wish I
Speaker 1: could do some research on this. It's really these are
Speaker 1: cool speculators. We can It seems like there are these
Speaker 1: two major at least two major clusters at the aspect
Speaker 1: level that you don't see when you just stay at
Speaker 1: the bit too big five. So we just talked about one,
Speaker 1: but the other one seems to be a more dominance cluster,
Speaker 1: and that could be assertiveness, maybe disagreeableness. You know, and
Speaker 1: I'm sure we can stick in a third one if
Speaker 1: we wanted to somewhere in the conscientiousness maybe high conscientiousness
Speaker 1: as well. You know, our grit might be part of that.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't know. I'm just riffing, but
Speaker 1: it seems like there are at least two major pathways
Speaker 1: to power within the Big five. Yeah, and I think
Speaker 1: you've nicely charted those configurations, you know, as an offshooter
Speaker 1: that Scott. Yeah, you know, another personality space that we
Speaker 1: should be talking about is the dark triad. Obviously, I
Speaker 1: love that Ochabelianism, sosiopathy, and narcissism. And my colleague Leanne
Speaker 1: Tenbrinke and I were really frustrated with the power literature
Speaker 1: because there's this assumption out there and it's just a stereotype, right,
Speaker 1: just as like people stereotype that women can't be leaders,
Speaker 1: when in fact a lot of the data show their
Speaker 1: better just as are better than men on average. But
Speaker 1: there's this stereotype that you got to be a killer
Speaker 1: to gain power, got to be a sociopath or Machabelian.
Speaker 1: It has really deep intellectual roots to trace back to
Speaker 1: the deep Machiavelli and So we've actually tested that in
Speaker 1: two different contexts. One was with US senators and we
Speaker 1: published this I think in twenty fifteen. U code the
Speaker 1: speeches of US senators for how much humanity and sort
Speaker 1: of empowering compassion this show versus sociopathy and narcissism. Do
Speaker 1: they lick their lips and show the high dominant dopamine stuff.
Speaker 1: And it was really the more just humane senators who
Speaker 1: got more support for the bills they were trying to ote.
Speaker 1: And we've got a paper coming out very soon where
Speaker 1: we did the same analysis coding the speeches in terms
Speaker 1: of their nonverbal behavior of hedge fund managers, and we
Speaker 1: find that sociopathic kind of high domineering killer type hedge
Speaker 1: fund managers do worse for the people who invest in them. Right,
Speaker 1: So that these are cautionary tales about our image of
Speaker 1: power that we need. Well, that is wonderful findings and
Speaker 1: I would love to cite them in my work if
Speaker 1: you wouldn't mind following up. Yeah, and this does suggest
Speaker 1: that you know, the interpersonal circumplex originally was labeled as
Speaker 1: the power or slash status axis, and I don't refer
Speaker 1: to it as such or anymore it's just agency, you know,
Speaker 1: because we need to like think like you're saying, you know,
Speaker 1: and this is largely your point, and I'm agreeing with it,
Speaker 1: but it seems like in that spirit, I'd be happy
Speaker 1: to retire that description of that access and open up
Speaker 1: power to even you know, like the communal side or
Speaker 1: that the intersection I was talking about where you have
Speaker 1: the affiliation plus plus compassion. Yeah, and you know, and
Speaker 1: we need to do this kind of work on these
Speaker 1: scales that define parts of our science, right, Yeah, they
Speaker 1: get more refined as science advances, and we need to
Speaker 1: evolve our scales as well for many different reasons. Brilliant,
Speaker 1: it's brilliant. It's such good stuff. So you have this quote,
Speaker 1: power is given, not grabbed in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1: Is that a cautionary tale to kind of help us
Speaker 1: realize that, you know, it were people who gave us
Speaker 1: that power. Yeah, So when it goes to our head,
Speaker 1: is that a good reminder that we didn't do it
Speaker 1: all by ourselves. It's one of the deepest reminders. You know.
Speaker 1: That idea really came out of a spectacular line of
Speaker 1: thinking on power by Christopher boem b o e h
Speaker 1: M at USC and he surveyed the data of hunter
Speaker 1: gatherers societies and I think there are forty eight studies
Speaker 1: in this meta analysis. And these are people living in
Speaker 1: small groups that defined our evolution for two hundred thousand years.
Speaker 1: It's really the kind of the context in which we
Speaker 1: developed into the primate that we are today. And he said,
Speaker 1: he talked about how groups control how much power you have,
Speaker 1: and they do it by if you abuse your power,
Speaker 1: they'll mock you, they'll tease you, they will spread gossip
Speaker 1: about you, they will opely chastise you. Right, and your
Speaker 1: power and this is also found in the sociological literature,
Speaker 1: is given to you by the network you're part of. Right,
Speaker 1: my power in psychological science, my influence is dependent upon
Speaker 1: my reputation and what other people think of me. And
Speaker 1: if they think I'm a jerk or they think I
Speaker 1: do shoddy science, They're not going to refer to my work.
Speaker 1: They're going to ignore it, they're going to make fun
Speaker 1: of it, and it will have no influence in the field.
Speaker 1: And so your power, fundamentally, for the most time, context
Speaker 1: is given to you. And you know there are exceptions.
Speaker 1: Obviously you look at political elections and you look at
Speaker 1: the machinations of them and vote counting issues and voter
Speaker 1: suppression and the like. In Oops, you suddenly see power
Speaker 1: can be grabbed. But the broader and those are important exceptions,
Speaker 1: but the broader lesson is you're only as good in
Speaker 1: terms of power as the esteem other people dragt you.
Speaker 1: I like that. I think I agree with fifty percent
Speaker 1: of that statement. Then that power is given, but it
Speaker 1: looks like power can be There are two roots to
Speaker 1: social status from the evolution. So the nuanced, un sexy
Speaker 1: version is powers given and it could either be grabbed
Speaker 1: or you know, the other option. However, there's one version
Speaker 1: that is re produced with to well being and ultimate success.
Speaker 1: And that's a total mouthful. Yeah, you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: and it's so interesting, Scott, because you know, I wrote
Speaker 1: the power paradox right like power is given, not grabbed,
Speaker 1: and I literally published it before Trump prose. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: rise of right wing I mean literally a month later
Speaker 1: Trump rose. Yeah, but not only Trump, but we had
Speaker 1: all this right wing, this emergence of right wing politics
Speaker 1: that people are very worried about, where it really looks like, wow,
Speaker 1: there is a force in human psyche and in human
Speaker 1: society that's all about taking others down to grab power.
Speaker 1: And I had a lot of material on grabbing power
Speaker 1: that we've been talking about, these two roots to power
Speaker 1: that I cut out that is worth really reminding ourselves of. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it just seems like, you know, because they use examples
Speaker 1: in that evolutionary literashire, like if you're in jail, I
Speaker 1: mean usually the dominant person is the one who really
Speaker 1: wins and thrives in that environment. Is that right? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And so there are certain environments that there's a reason
Speaker 1: why we evolve these those social strategies, as every psychologists
Speaker 1: call them exploitative. Yeah, and that's where you got to
Speaker 1: think about the nature of the social system that you're in. So,
Speaker 1: for example, is there accountability to your actions? Right, because
Speaker 1: that will diminish domineering power. In prisons, there's no accountability,
Speaker 1: it's all haywire. There is your action publicly visible. We
Speaker 1: know people are better behave when their actions are publicly visible.
Speaker 1: But when Trump makes his private deals at mar Lago,
Speaker 1: or a prisoner is not is in a prison cell
Speaker 1: and no one's looking, then coercive power can rain another
Speaker 1: one that's really important, and it's rising in our conversation
Speaker 1: today is what do we value in leaders? Right? Do
Speaker 1: we think it's okay that a leader can swear and
Speaker 1: grab people's genitalia and you know, brag about it and
Speaker 1: act in irrational ways. If we value that, when we
Speaker 1: value the right kinds of things, that will constrain leaders
Speaker 1: in really interesting ways to be better behaved. So I
Speaker 1: think that in part, as Snyder says in his recent
Speaker 1: book on tyranny, which is really your audience really should
Speaker 1: read it. He's a Yale historian. His first principle of
Speaker 1: tyranny is people give power to tyrants by just backing off,
Speaker 1: by letting them run rough shot over us. And it
Speaker 1: really is in our hands to constrain the domineering types
Speaker 1: of power and the abuses of power. Oh boy, so
Speaker 1: we even can make this sense even more nuanced. Powers
Speaker 1: given willingly or unwillingly, either through grabbing or compassion, and
Speaker 1: depending on the context, one or the other will be
Speaker 1: more conducive to harmonious cooperation or something. That's a big mouthful,
Speaker 1: but yeah it is. But I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: I think now that is the challenge of the day, right, which, yes,
Speaker 1: we have this tendency to give power to people who
Speaker 1: advance societies, and there are historical moments where that is
Speaker 1: corrupted and it's still in our hands to give power
Speaker 1: to the right people. Yeah, it's such an oh man,
Speaker 1: what an important message. And it seems like your phrase
Speaker 1: power is given out grabbed. I mean, it has a
Speaker 1: real new meaning under you know, the Genitalia situation that
Speaker 1: we had with our current named So when you came
Speaker 1: up with that phrase, you actually didn't mean that at all,
Speaker 1: did you? Is that right? I didn't, you know, But
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what. And it's interesting for your audience
Speaker 1: to know that that phrase also came out of really
Speaker 1: important scholarship on by Joseph Nye at Harvard University, who's
Speaker 1: the author of concept Smart Power and Soft Power, and
Speaker 1: what he noticed, and I think it's very relevant to today,
Speaker 1: which is that during the Shock and Awe campaign where
Speaker 1: we bomb the lights out of Iraq, Bush and Cheney,
Speaker 1: that was one of these really assertive, dominering acts of power.
Speaker 1: But in point of fact, when you look at the
Speaker 1: broad effects of that action, right, we lost enormous influence
Speaker 1: on the worldwide stage, and that's been documented by Joseph Nye.
Speaker 1: And then when you think about the long term effects
Speaker 1: of that single policy on the status of the American people,
Speaker 1: the trillions of dollars it costs, that cost us, that
Speaker 1: disempowered us as well. So I think what we see
Speaker 1: today is another interesting example of where these really coursive
Speaker 1: forms of power cost individuals and the collectives they represent
Speaker 1: in the long term. Yeah, I'm so glad that you
Speaker 1: and others that you mentioned doing this kind of research.
Speaker 1: Without this kind of research, it's very easy to just
Speaker 1: for anyone to just, based on their own value system,
Speaker 1: kind of say what is important. I mean, obviously the
Speaker 1: dominant listener to this conversation will be laughing at us, right,
Speaker 1: And I know, yeah, yeah, yeah, And that's like it's chumps.
Speaker 1: They would call this chumps, right. You know, I've dealt
Speaker 1: with bullies so much in my childhood that I know
Speaker 1: exactly how it is. So what are I think? I
Speaker 1: maybe we talked about that a little bit in the
Speaker 1: last chat. I can't remember, but I feel the day's
Speaker 1: age right now, this is a common thing we talk
Speaker 1: about bullies. Bullies. I'd love to talk a little about
Speaker 1: what are some potential some of the pathways to enduring power.
Speaker 1: And it's another aspect of your book. I really loved
Speaker 1: how you this. Even the phrase enduring power, it's a
Speaker 1: powerful phrase to me. So can you maybe tell the
Speaker 1: listeners some of those pathways. Yeah, you know, power is
Speaker 1: such a rush, right that, like, Wow, I feel powerful.
Speaker 1: I'm at the top of the game, you know. And
Speaker 1: I've been teaching this stuff to managers and executives and
Speaker 1: leaders for twenty years and the smart ones are recognized. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is a rush. It's great if the dopamine high
Speaker 1: that we've talked about, But what really matters is what
Speaker 1: your life looks like after you know, fifty years of
Speaker 1: work and in a relationship or relationships, and what you
Speaker 1: do in the community. And that's really enduring power, right.
Speaker 1: And the Greeks were very interested in this question of
Speaker 1: at the end of life, what have you given? And
Speaker 1: to me, that's the deeper question about power is how
Speaker 1: have you influenced others over the long haul of life
Speaker 1: and not just in the moment of rising to the top.
Speaker 1: And that then begs the question of what pathways lead
Speaker 1: to enduring influence. And one, notwithstanding certain critiques, is empathy
Speaker 1: is just make it a practice to think about what
Speaker 1: other people are thinking, to take on their feelings to
Speaker 1: listen to their wisdom. You know, I was blown away
Speaker 1: and reading about Abraham Lincoln that as Thurlow Weed, a
Speaker 1: journalist who followed him at the time, said, his political
Speaker 1: genius was that he heard all who came to speak
Speaker 1: to him, He read everything that was written to him,
Speaker 1: and he listened with a genius intent. Right, he just
Speaker 1: absorbed himself in other people's minds empathy, And when you
Speaker 1: look at great leaders, they have this quality. And then
Speaker 1: there are people like Stefan Cote who's finding Wow, it's
Speaker 1: really the empathetic managers who keep their power, who have
Speaker 1: enduring power. Then, you know, a second one is the
Speaker 1: recognition that we've talked about that is really just hyper
Speaker 1: connecting in you know, this dimension to extraversion, Scott, that
Speaker 1: you've really sharply brought into focus of. Like, you know,
Speaker 1: just make sure that you're always don't seduce yourself into
Speaker 1: thinking your power is the product of your genius or
Speaker 1: your incredible talents. Really it's you're enduring powers related to
Speaker 1: the networks you build. This is true of primates, front
Speaker 1: of All's work on chimps, it's true of hunter gatherer societies,
Speaker 1: and it's true today. Right, So there are studies of
Speaker 1: organizations showing if you want to really drive social change
Speaker 1: in the organization have power, be it a scientific society
Speaker 1: or a finance firm. You're hyper connected, right, so just
Speaker 1: make sure you're connecting, having fun, laughing, reaching out to
Speaker 1: others and then you know, I'll get pro social on you.
Speaker 1: But you know, I think kindness and sharing are fundamental
Speaker 1: in the long haul. And you know, there are meta
Speaker 1: analyzes showing with a little bit of data showing agreeableness,
Speaker 1: which you've talked about that one of the big five.
Speaker 1: Kindness helps you keep power. And when you study great leaders,
Speaker 1: very often they have this really really clear devot to
Speaker 1: other people. Now, you know, there are bullies out there
Speaker 1: who may be laughing at us, but there are data
Speaker 1: that align with these ideas because those are the ones
Speaker 1: that are made fun of by the bullies. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's really what's going on in middle school. The ones
Speaker 1: that are the most made fun of. The quote, the nerds,
Speaker 1: the humanitarians, the one you know, the sweet little girl
Speaker 1: who brings cookies for the teacher then gets bullied and
Speaker 1: my heart breaks. It's horrible, but I think that's what
Speaker 1: we see though, right, yeah, I agree, and you know
Speaker 1: you've brought into focus, you know, and it's a little
Speaker 1: bit in the power paradox, which is there is this
Speaker 1: struggle over power. Is it the Machiavelian domineering bullying type,
Speaker 1: and that does prevail in places versus this pro social
Speaker 1: collaborative type, And there are context where that is a battle,
Speaker 1: right and it's historical battle that we have to engage in,
Speaker 1: be it on the playground or in the US Senate totally.
Speaker 1: And the person who might be the bully in school,
Speaker 1: that could be coming from a place of intense powerlessness
Speaker 1: for that person. So we should be clear that these
Speaker 1: are malleable characteristics. Sometimes the bully can grow up to
Speaker 1: channel in a way once they get power and positive
Speaker 1: beneficial things. But as you make the point in your
Speaker 1: book that a lot of that hubris and arrogance and
Speaker 1: exploitation can come from a place of a person feeling
Speaker 1: like they don't have any power, right yeah. And we
Speaker 1: have to remember, you know, bullies were bullied very often
Speaker 1: the reviews, they suffer depression and anxiety at higher rates,
Speaker 1: right yeah, And so remember that, as you say, it
Speaker 1: comes from a place of a defensiveness or even weakness.
Speaker 1: It's hard to remember that when you're being bullied, but
Speaker 1: I've been there. Yeah, we can of course remember that.
Speaker 1: Just I'll end here. You know, maybe you could just
Speaker 1: go with one or two pathways to during power because
Speaker 1: you talk about a fivefold pathway and you see how
Speaker 1: can we outsmart the power paradox? So maybe you just
Speaker 1: want to leave one way that your favorite on how
Speaker 1: we Cannouncemarte the power of Paradox. Well, you know, I've
Speaker 1: already talked about sharing and empathy and kindness, but one
Speaker 1: that really struck me as I wrote this book, Scott,
Speaker 1: and is humility. And you know, humility is as complex
Speaker 1: construct as you know, which is it's about having an
Speaker 1: accurate sense of who you are. So it's a counter
Speaker 1: to the narcissism we've talked about. But it's also mixed
Speaker 1: in with what you spoke of, Scott, which is a
Speaker 1: curiosity about other people, you know, just a recognition of
Speaker 1: how important other people are. And that really is the
Speaker 1: texture of humility. And I remember I got to work
Speaker 1: on inside Out with Pete Doctor and you know Pete
Speaker 1: was the director of up Monsters, Inc. And then inside
Speaker 1: Out Oscar Winner. You know, inside Out ended up being
Speaker 1: one of the best reviewed movies of the year one
Speaker 1: an Oscar et cetera and Pete two hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: people to make a movie, right, that's power. His movies
Speaker 1: reach hundreds of millions of people. They're billion dollar enterprises.
Speaker 1: And I remember having lunch with him after he won
Speaker 1: the Oscar, you know, and he was so humble about
Speaker 1: the endeavor, you know, he was I got certain things
Speaker 1: I got wrong. It really was due to Ronnie del Carmen,
Speaker 1: my assistant director. I really want to improve on this.
Speaker 1: You know. There was such humility in his reflection on things,
Speaker 1: and I think when you find people who enjoy enduring
Speaker 1: power in their family or love life or at work,
Speaker 1: there's humility there. And that's what we've got to go after.
Speaker 1: That's wonderful. We're going to end in that note because
Speaker 1: it's a wonderful note to end on. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for your be so generous on being in a
Speaker 1: psychology podcast twice now and often your wisdom. I will
Speaker 1: talk with you. It's awesome to talk to you. I've
Speaker 1: got nine research ideas I got to go say thank
Speaker 1: you so much for listening to the Psychology Podcast with
Speaker 1: Doctor Scott Barry Kaufman. I hope you found this episode
Speaker 1: just as thought provoking as I did. If something you
Speaker 1: heard today stimulated you in some way, I encourage you
Speaker 1: to join in the discussion at the Psychology podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: That's the Psychology podcast dot com.