You've likely heard of Machiavellianism. It's seldom used positively.
It originated from the book, The Prince, written in 1532 about the rise of a new leader; it's considered the first example of modern political philosophy. The book explores the philosophy that the ends (glory and survival) may justify immoral means (corruption and killing) for rulers.
Since then, the term Machiavellianism has been used by psychologists to describe a person's tendency to be unemotional, and therefore able to detach him or herself from conventional morality. By doing so, one can deceive and manipulate others for their own gain without feeling guilty for their actions.
In the experiment illustrated above, psychologists separated participants into 2 groups.
- Group 1 was made to feel like they "were in a high power position"
- Group 2 was made to feel like they "were in a low power position"
Participants in high-power Group 1 were 3x as likely to draw the E on their forehead so it was forwards for themselves but backwards for others, suggesting they are less likely to consider other people's views (more here).
In order to obtain power, people usually need a high level of social intelligence. They also exhibit dynamic and engaging personalities. It's once they achieve power that things change...
Studies show that once people assume positions of power, they tend to act more selfish, impulsive and aggressive (Source: Dacher Keltner, The Power Paradox) and have a harder time viewing the world "empathetically" (i.e., a more "Machiavellian mindset," drawing Es on their foreheads that look like 3s to everyone else).
What you see is a paradox of power:
The skills used to obtain power and lead effectively (i.e., high EQ) tend to evaporate once someone actually achieves power.
Luckily, people usually revolt against or leave this type of leader... it's only a matter of time.
Instead, it might be better to follow Lao-Tzu's advice:
"To lead the people, walk behind them."
No comments:
Post a Comment