PDA

View Full Version : "If humble people make the best leaders, why do we fall for charismatic narcissists?"



Aragorn
10th April 2017, 22:22
https://hbr.org/resources/images/article_assets/2017/04/apr17-07-610032338-1024x576.jpg



Source: Harvard Business Review (https://hbr.org/2017/04/if-humble-people-make-the-best-leaders-why-do-we-fall-for-charismatic-narcissists)



By Margarita Mayo (https://hbr.org/search?term=margarita+mayo)



The research (https://hbr.org/2014/05/the-best-leaders-are-humble-leaders) is clear: when we choose humble, unassuming people as our leaders, the world around us becomes a better place.

Humble leaders improve the performance of a company in the long run because they create more collaborative environments. They have a balanced view of themselves – both their virtues and shortcomings – and a strong appreciation of others’ strengths and contributions, while being open to new ideas and feedback. These “unsung heroes” help their believers to build their self-esteem, go beyond their expectations, and create a community that channels individual efforts into an organized group that works for the good of the collective.

For example, one study (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0149206315604187) examined 105 small-to-medium-sized companies in the computer software and hardware industry in the United Studies. The findings revealed that when a humble CEO is at the helm of a firm, its top management team is more likely to collaborate and share information, making the most of the firm’s talent.

Another study showed that a leader’s humility can be contagious (http://amj.aom.org/content/59/3/1088.abstract): when leaders behave humbly, followers emulate their modest attitude and behavior. A study of 161 teams found that employees following humble leaders were themselves more likely to admit their mistakes and limitations, share the spotlight by deflecting praise to others, and be open to new ideas, advice, and feedback.

Yet instead of following the lead of these unsung heroes, we appear hardwired to search for superheroes: over-glorifying leaders who exude charisma.

The Greek word Kharisma means “divine gift,” and charisma is the quality of extraordinary charm, magnetism, and presence that makes a person capable of inspiring others with enthusiasm and devotion. German sociologist (https://ie.on.worldcat.org/oclc/38535925) Max Weber defined charisma as “of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of it, the individual concerned is treated as a leader.” Research evidence (https://books.google.com/books/about/Charismatic_Leadership_in_Organizations.html?id=dn 8Y3QCqQPoC) on charismatic leadership reveals that charismatic people are more likely to become endorsed as leaders because of their high energy, unconventional behavior, and heroic deeds.

While charisma is conductive to orchestrating positive large-scale transformations, there can be a “dark side” to charismatic leadership. Jay Conger and Rabindra Kanungo describe it this way in their seminal book (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/charismatic-leadership-in-organizations/book8009): “Charismatic leaders can be prone to extreme narcissism that leads them to promote highly self-serving and grandiose aims.” A clinical study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0090261695900179) illustrates that when charisma overlaps with narcissism, leaders tend to abuse their power and take advantage of their followers. Another study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01179.x/abstract) indicates that narcissistic leaders tend to present a bold vision of the future, and this makes them more charismatic in the eyes of others.

Why are such leaders more likely to rise to the top? One study (http://journals.sagepub.com.ezxy.ie.edu/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611417259?journalCode=pssa&volume=22&year=2011&issue=10) suggests that despite being perceived as arrogant, narcissistic individuals radiate “an image of a prototypically effective leader.” Narcissistic leaders know how to draw attention toward themselves. They enjoy the visibility. It takes time for people to see that these early signals of competence are not later realized, and that a leader’s narcissism reduces the exchange of information among team members and often negatively affects group performance.

It’s not that charismatic and narcissistic people can’t ever make good leaders. In some circumstances, they can. For example, one study found that (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254078675_It%27s_All_about_Me_Narcissistic_Chief_E xecutive_Officers_and_Their_Effects_on_Company_Str ategy_and_Performance) narcissistic CEOs “favor bold actions that attract attention, resulting in big wins or big losses.” A narcissistic leader thus can represent a high-risk, high-reward proposition.

And it’s not that humble leaders can’t ever be charismatic. Researchers agree that we could classify charismatic leaders as “negative” or “positive” by their orientation toward pursuing their self-interested goals versus those of their groups. These two sides of charismatic leadership have also been called personalized and socialized charisma (http://amr.aom.org/content/30/1/96.short). Although the socialized charismatic leader has the aura of a hero, it is counteracted with low authoritarianism and a genuine interest in the collective welfare. In contrast, the personalized charismatic leader’s perceived heroism is coupled with high authoritarianism and high narcissism. It is when followers are confused and disoriented that they are more likely to form personalized relationships with a charismatic leader. Socialized relationships, on the other hand, are established by followers with a clear set of values who view the charismatic leader as a means to achieve collective action.

The problem is that we select negative charismatic leaders much more frequently than in the limited situations where the risk they represent might pay off. Despite their grandiose view of themselves, low empathy, dominant orientation toward others, and strong sense of entitlement, their charisma proves irresistible. Followers of superheroes are enthralled by their showmanship: through their sheer magnetism, narcissistic leaders transform their environments into a competitive game in which their followers also become more self-centered, giving rise to organizational narcissism, as one study (http://journals.sagepub.com.ezxy.ie.edu/doi/abs/10.1177/0018726703056005001?journalCode=huma&volume=56&year=2003&issue=5) shows.

If humble leaders are more effective than narcissistic leaders, why do we so often choose narcissistic individuals to lead us?

The “romance of leadership (http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezxy.ie.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=d311c700-da22-452e-b6bb-afe96296d401%40sessionmgr101)” hypothesis suggests that we generally have a biased tendency to understand social events in terms of leadership and people tend to romanticize the figure of the leader.

My own research (http://content.ebscohost.com.ezxy.ie.edu/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=2007-16921-009&S=L&D=pdh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNXb4kSeqLM4yNfsOLCmr0%2BeprNSsam 4S7WWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGosU23rrZLuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA) shows that our psychological states can also bias our perceptions of charismatic leaders. High levels of anxiety make us hungry for charisma. As a result, crises increase not only the search for charismatic leaders, but also our tendency to perceive charisma in the leaders we already follow.

Economic and social crises thus become a unique testing ground for charismatic leaders. They create conditions of distress and uncertainty that appear to be ideal for the ascent of charismatic figures. Yet at the same time, they also make us more vulnerable to choosing the wrong leader. Crises and other emotionally laden events increase our propensity to romanticize the grandiose view of narcissistic leaders. The paradox is that we may then choose to support the very leaders who are less likely to bring us success. In a time of crisis, it’s easy to be seduced by superheroes who could come and “rescue” us, but who possibly then plunge us into greater peril.

While this may sound hopeless, there is another way of looking at it. Essentially, we have the leaders we deserve. As we collectively select and construct our leaders to satisfy our own needs and desires, we can choose humility or socialized charisma over narcissism


Margarita Mayo (https://hbr.org/search?term=margarita+mayo) (margaritamayo.com (http://margaritamayo.com/)) is Professor of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at IE Business School in Madrid. She was recently featured on the Thinkers50 Radar as one of 30 thought leaders to watch in 2017. Her new book, "Yours Truly: How to Stay True to Your Authentic Self in Leadership and Life" will be published by Bloomsbury in 2018.


Source: Harvard Business Review (https://hbr.org/2017/04/if-humble-people-make-the-best-leaders-why-do-we-fall-for-charismatic-narcissists)

NotAPretender
10th April 2017, 23:48
Interesting research and all desperately true...fear projects to a need for a narcissistic 'charismatic' leader. Narcissism projects itself. (e.g. If I choose that one and it is considered 'cool' then I'm cool, too) Personal values are drivers of our modes of projection, we all do it, but the superficial personality type has superficial, even blind, modes of projection.

And, of course, as unbelievable as it is, the rest is American history. :)

Aragorn
11th April 2017, 00:01
Interesting research and all desperately true...fear projects to a need for a narcissistic 'charismatic' leader. Narcissism projects itself. (e.g. If I choose that one and it is considered 'cool' then I'm cool, too) Personal values are drivers of our modes of projection, we all do it, but the superficial personality type has superficial, even blind, modes of projection.

And, of course, as unbelievable as it is, the rest is American history. :)

Not just American history. Look at Europe: Angela Merkel in Germany, and in the still recent past, Nicolas Sarkozy in France (with Marine Le Pen now gaining more momentum every day), or Berlusconi in Italy. Or if you will, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. I can even name a few Belgian politicians who fit that bill. The list is endless.

For that matter, you can also draw a parallel with the so-called alternative community: Bill Ryan, Kerry Cassidy, David Wilcock, Joseph P. Farrell, Richard Dolan, and perhaps even David Icke.

It's a human phenomenon. We've all been bred into this kind of nonsense, and we're hard-wired into thinking along those lines. <shaking my head>

Amanda
13th April 2017, 03:38
What's the old adage about when a job position becomes available? When the people from whom to choose is less than inspiring - someone has to get the job so it is given to the one who stands out from a group who are all substandard ....

Timing is everything - my music and dance experience taught me that and it applies to life as well. While people keep entering the awakened state - more and more intelligent and empathetic people will find their strengths and rise into positions of authority. It is happening all the time.

Psychopaths and narcissists do a lot of damage and it will slow down and eventually stop, when they are replaced by people with proper intellectual skills. Our era is one of many changes and that includes how we live .... Just thinking out aloud.

Much Peace - Amanda

Dreamtimer
14th June 2017, 15:17
From an article (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-making-europe-liberal-again/) by Nate Silver


On Dec. 4 last year, less than a month after Donald Trump had defeated Hillary Clinton, Austria held a revote in its presidential election, which pitted Alexander Van der Bellen, a liberal who had the backing of the Green Party, against Norbert Hofer of the right-wing Freedom Party.

In May 2016, Van der Bellen had defeated Hofer by just more than 30,000 votes — receiving 50.3 percent of the vote to Hofer’s 49.7 percent — but the results had been annulled and a new election had been declared.

Hofer had to like his chances: Polls showed a close race, but with him ever so slightly ahead in the polling average. Hofer cited Trump as an inspiration and said that he, like Trump, could overcome headwinds from the political establishment.

So what happened? Van der Bellen won by nearly 8 percentage points. Not only did Hofer receive a smaller share of the vote than in May, but he also had fewer votes despite a higher turnout. Something had caused Austrians to change their minds and decide that Hofer’s brand of populism wasn’t such a good idea after all.


The result didn’t get that much attention in the news outlets I follow, perhaps because it went against the emerging narrative that right-wing populism was on the upswing.


If the populist tide were rising, Hofer should have been able to overcome his tiny deficit with Van der Bellen and win. Instead, he backslid. It struck me as a potential sign that Trump’s election could represent the crest of the populist movement, rather than the beginning of a nationalist wave...

Nate's tweet about this is shown in the article.


...the pattern has been repeated so far in every major European election since Trump’s victory. In the Netherlands, France and the U.K., right-wing parties faded down the stretch run of their campaigns and then further underperformed their polls on election day. (The latest example came on Sunday in the French legislative elections, when Marine Le Pen’s National Front received only 13 percent of the vote and one to five seats in the French National Assembly.) The right-wing Alternative for Germany has also faded in polls of the German federal election, which will be contested in September.


The beneficiaries of the right-wing decline have variously been politicians on the left (such as Austria’s Van der Bellen), the center-left (such as France’s Emmanuel Macron) and the center-right (such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, whose Christian Democratic Union has rebounded in polls). But there’s been another pattern in who gains or loses support: The warmer a candidate’s relationship with Trump, the worse he or she has tended to do.


Merkel, for instance, has often been criticized by Trump and has often criticized him back. Her popularity has increased, and her advisers have half-jokingly credited the “Trump factor” for the sharp rebound in her approval ratings over the past year.


By contrast, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has a warmer relationship with Trump....Her Conservatives suffered a humiliating result, blowing a 17 percentage point polling lead and losing their majority in Parliament; it’s now not clear how much longer she’ll continue as prime minister. Trump was not May’s only problem, but he certainly didn’t help.

There follow a series of graphs as Nate analyzes different European countries showing PVV fading in the Netherlands, Le Pen fading in France, UKIP fading in the UK, and AfD fading in Germany. Nate says,


I haven’t cherry-picked these outcomes; these are the the major elections in Western Europe this year. If you want to get more obscure, the nationalist Finns Party underperformed its polls and lost a significant number of seats in the Finnish municipal elections in April, while the United Patriots, a coalition of nationalist parties, lost three seats in the Bulgarian parliamentary elections in March.

There's a table showing consistent underperformance of the right wing parties.


While there’s no smoking gun to attribute this shift to Trump, there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence....He’s explicitly become a subject of debate among the candidates in Germany and the U.K. To the extent the populist wave was partly an anti-establishment wave, Trump — the president of the most powerful country on earth — has now become a symbol of the establishment, at least to Europeans.


Sometimes, what seems like the surest sign of an emerging trend can turn out to be its peak instead. It’s usually hard to tell when you’re in the midst of it. Trump probably hasn’t set the nationalist cause back by decades, and the rise of authoritarianism continues to represent an existential threat to liberal democracy. But Trump may have set his cause back by years, especially in Western Europe. At the very least, it’s become harder to make the case that the nationalist tide is still on the rise.

Lord Sidious
14th June 2017, 15:27
In the same way that we have ''as above, so below'' we also have ''as within, so without'' and people seem to choose a projection of themselves

Dreamtimer
14th June 2017, 15:29
Damn projection. It's causing all kinds of trouble.

Lord Sidious
14th June 2017, 15:32
Damn projection. It's causing all kinds of trouble.

Except in my home cinema.
Although the neighbours don't appreciate me sharing the sound with them.
Miserable ba st ar ds

Dreamtimer
14th June 2017, 15:40
My friend Jaime has a man cave where we watched Lord of the Rings and it was so loud my ears were nearly ringing the next day. But his neighbors are too far away to hear.

Lord Sidious
14th June 2017, 15:41
My friend Jaime has a man cave where we watched Lord of the Rings and it was so loud my ears were nearly ringing the next day. But his neighbors are too far away to hear.

When I watch Star Wars, the first scene with the Tantive 4 and the Devestator makes the house vibrate/shake

Dumpster Diver
14th June 2017, 20:54
Aragorn!

Someone chopped off Batman's ears in the picture you posted!

Shame!

Dreamtimer
30th November 2017, 14:05
Heretics!:batman


It looks like Trump has gone from erratic to mad. As in crazy.

I can't jump through hoops to rationalize 4D chess. Occam's razor must be applied.

He's playing 52 pick-up. And our country is the deck of cards.

Dumpster Diver
30th November 2017, 14:23
Dreamy, if the multiple alt-world pundits are to be believed, the Trumpster fire has over 4000 sealed indictments soon to be delivered.

...and yesterday we got as many as 3 new pedos/murderers/sexual misconductees “outed”, Matt Laurer, Garrison Keillor, and Morning Joe Scarborough (by Trump himself).

If he nails the pedos I’ll change my logo to the Dark Trump...maybe.

Dreamtimer
30th November 2017, 14:36
A wolf catching the wolf pack is not something to admire, imo. He's just as guilty as the pedos, imo.

He's outright saying he believes Moore and Putin simply because they speak words that he agrees with.

NotAPretender
30th November 2017, 14:44
what putin has over Trump are Trump's 'lady entertainers' while in Russia. That's been obvious to me since the campaign.

Garrison Keillor is a pedo. I love that guy. He is as innocent as a 'harasser' can possibly be. All I can say at this point is I damn glad I'm a nobody. :)

Dumpster Diver
30th November 2017, 14:51
A wolf catching the wolf pack is not something to admire, imo. He's just as guilty as the pedos, imo.

He's outright saying he believes Moore and Putin simply because they speak words that he agrees with.

Bad guys taking out bad guys is a bad thing? :garden:

Dreamtimer
30th November 2017, 14:59
Bad guys being heroes for making examples of someone else while they secure their own positions and obscure their own guilt are a bad thing.

That doesn't stop the problem for real. Just makes it fade into the background again.

Dumpster Diver
30th November 2017, 15:12
Bad guys being heroes for making examples of someone else while they secure their own positions and obscure their own guilt are a bad thing.

That doesn't stop the problem for real. Just makes it fade into the background again.

Ok, but down here on Earth, I’ll settle for a bunch of pedo-perp walks. I’m into circus acts.

Karma will get Trump later...

enjoy being
2nd December 2017, 22:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJL6nfu__Q

Lemual
4th December 2017, 01:16
For that matter, you can also draw a parallel with the so-called alternative community: Bill Ryan, Kerry Cassidy, David Wilcock, Joseph P. Farrell, Richard Dolan, and perhaps even David Icke.

I have a fair idea about these guys except for JP Farrell. You'd really put Richard Dolan in the same category as the others? I'm not saying he's beyond criticism but I see a pretty big distinction between say, Dolan and Wilcock.

Aragorn
4th December 2017, 01:27
For that matter, you can also draw a parallel with the so-called alternative community: Bill Ryan, Kerry Cassidy, David Wilcock, Joseph P. Farrell, Richard Dolan, and perhaps even David Icke.

I have a fair idea about these guys except for JP Farrell. You'd really put Richard Dolan in the same category as the others? I'm not saying he's beyond criticism but I see a pretty big distinction between say, Dolan and Wilcock.

Well, Dolan is definitely more serious as a researcher, and he's higher up my ladder of credibility than Joseph P. Farrell — and most definitely much higher up that ladder than Wilcock, El Sombrero™ or Kerry — but I do discern certain signs of narcissism in his body language, and he definitely makes a living off of his books and his lectures.

So in the end, he's just another one of the "celebrities" of the so-called alternative community, and my opinion is still that we have to start listening to our own hearts and intuitions, instead of listening to these talking heads. :hmm:

Lemual
4th December 2017, 01:46
Fair enough. I'm not really "up" with who's popular/considered a celebrity in the alt circles at the moment. I generally appreciate his research, it's usually well referenced. I can't fault him for making money from his books and lectures though, I don't think this necessarily makes anyone a narcissist.

I agree to an extent, but we can't only listen to our "hearts and intuitions" to the exclusion of everything else. I'm guessing that's not exactly what you meant and was more railing against the cult of celebrity, which I whole-heartedly agree with.

Also... El Sombrero... :hilarious: I hadn't heard that one yet!

Aragorn
4th December 2017, 02:06
Fair enough. I'm not really "up" with who's popular/considered a celebrity in the alt circles at the moment. I generally appreciate his research, it's usually well referenced. I can't fault him for making money from his books and lectures though, I don't think this necessarily makes anyone a narcissist.

Well, no, that's not why I suspect him of narcissism. I was referring to certain signs in his body language and facial expressions.


I agree to an extent, but we can't only listen to our "hearts and intuitions" to the exclusion of everything else. I'm guessing that's not exactly what you meant and was more railing against the cult of celebrity, which I whole-heartedly agree with.

Yes, that is correct. ;) We do need information, of course, and someone whose recount of their experiences and/or research is genuine and sincere will always be appreciated, but there are too many wannabe-celebrities in this community, which makes the so-called alternative community merely another facsimile of mainstream society.


Also... El Sombrero... :hilarious: I hadn't heard that one yet!

I claim the trademark on that term. :p

Lemual
4th December 2017, 02:23
Ah ok, cool. :thup:

I really wonder how much/how far the "alt community" has been infiltrated? (in relation to "project Mockingbird" type scenarios). Or perhaps even just encouraging certain personalities? (useful idiot type thing) I don't think it'd really take too many resources to make an "alt" celebrity.

Of course, royalty cheques in the mail ;)

(also apologies I didn't "quote" anything, I'm being lazy)

Aragorn
4th December 2017, 04:01
I really wonder how much/how far the "alt community" has been infiltrated? (in relation to "project Mockingbird" type scenarios).

Not all that much, I'd say. If there's anything I've learned from dwelling within this so-called alternative community — as well as from my interactions with mainstream society itself — then it is that people are perfectly capable of deluding themselves and going off on tangents that take them even farther away from the truth than they were when they began looking for it.


Or perhaps even just encouraging certain personalities? (useful idiot type thing)

There will definitely be some of that going round, yes. There are a few names popping into my mind that fit the bill quite well.


I don't think it'd really take too many resources to make an "alt" celebrity.

Well, celebrities are usually made by the fans. The general public's addiction to personality cults and entertainment is the very soil in which this sort of thing grows like weed. The so-called alternative community is no different from the mainstream in that regard.

Look at what happened with Simon Parkes, Corey Goode, Shane "The Ruiner" Bales, and so on. They all had — and in some cases, still have — their groupies. Hell, the whole of Project Avalon as it currently exists is built around the personality of Bill Ryan, and to a quite ostensibly higher degree than that Project Camelot would revolve around the personality of Kerry Cassidy.

Lemual
4th December 2017, 05:43
Hell, the whole of Project Avalon as it currently exists is built around the personality of Bill Ryan, and to a quite ostensibly higher degree than that Project Camelot would revolve around the personality of Kerry Cassidy.

Do you think much of any use ever comes through those channels?

Aragorn
4th December 2017, 05:45
Hell, the whole of Project Avalon as it currently exists is built around the personality of Bill Ryan, and to a quite ostensibly higher degree than that Project Camelot would revolve around the personality of Kerry Cassidy.

Do you think much of any use ever comes through those channels?

Not really. ;) :lol:

Lemual
4th December 2017, 06:26
Not really. ;) :lol:

Had a feeling that might be your response ;) I remember visiting those sites back in the day and even then they felt somehow "off".

enjoy being
4th December 2017, 07:31
As far as I am concerned, having a forum on your website as a researcher used to be the done thing, but it has now become a potentiality for pitfalls.
There is still a David Icke forum isn't there? No one speaks about that, I remember back when I was a member of the Michael Tsarion forum, the David Icke forum was seen as a pool of hysteria. But I think that might have been largely because people used to be generally unable to control themselves in this 'new media'. It did really use to be much much more volatile as peoples beliefs came up against each other and soapbox preacher tried to save everyone left, right and center.

We have got it easy really. The Bill and Kerry Show came along towards the end of all that, and they were sort of seen, not as researchers but as reporters. But then one of the big swells in numbers of people wanting to discuss these sorts of topics happened and they all seemed to go to BK burgers. Maybe coinciding with the acceptance of computer geeking as mainstream and the rise of myspace and facebook, followed by all the other sh!t people are into.
I personally think the value comes as a lesson if it is needed and if it is learnt.. by realising the nature of conflict of belief and how malleable such things when the heart strings are tweaked. The desperation and fear and all these raw wounds of having ones eyes open makes people susceptible to all kinds of attachment forming, not unlike a Stockholm syndrome.

So yeah, I think the use of those forums, probably was in the past, and was more related to bombarding the self with challenges of truth and fiction and maintaining ones centeredness, and if not, learning from the ensuing depression or such.

Dumpster Diver
4th December 2017, 15:09
Do you think much of any use ever comes through those channels?

I do, but as a vector for research. Also, as I’ve mentioned in other threads, disinformation must be wrapped in a fair amount of truth. In other words, they know exactly what is wrong and must balance it with what exactly is right to balance it to sell it. If you can ferret out the disinformation point(s) then the rest must be fairly good. In this way, it can be more valuable than folks/sites that are looking for “straight truth” as they are frequently wrong. The Flat earthers is an example of this.

Dreamtimer
26th December 2017, 15:53
Here's some stuff about being conned and how difficult it is to both come back to reality and/or attempt to help someone else.


CULTS & CON ARTISTS GET US TO DO ALMOST ANYTHING AND THANK THEM FOR IT


David Maurer in his classic 1940 book The Big Con says:

“A mark, once hooked, is often most difficult to ‘unhook.’ If operators once get his confidence completely, he is so sure of the deal in which he is involved that he will not listen to reasonable advice even if it is given to him.”
Some examples Maurer gives:

“C.H. Hubbell of McPherson, Kansas who was tied up with the Christ Kid when the officers arrested the Kid. He was being played for $50,000 and was most indignant at the interruption. Even when he learned that he was being played on the rag, he refused to believe it and insisted on posting bond for both the Christ Kid and his insiderman”

Why does this happen? Ego! Ego! Ego! Marks convince themselves that they are right and they can’t fathom the idea that they are wrong. Cons prey upon the things we really want to believe are true.



Steven Hassan in his book Combatting Cult Mind Control says that cults ask for your life savings for 2 reasons:

1. To get your money

2. To leave the cult, you first need to come to grip with the painful realization that you just gave away all your money.

It is easier for the human mind to make up excuses than confront painful reality. It’s easier to deny climate change if you get all your money from oil. It’s easier to think of yourself as a “job creator” when asking for tax cuts.



Maurer writing from 1940 tells us a lot about those in charge today:

“Most marks come from the upper strata of society, which, in America, means they have made, married or inherited money. Because of this, they acquire status which in time they come to attribute to some inherent superiority, especially as regards matters of sound judgement in finance and investment. Friends and associates themselves social climbers and sycophants, help to maintain this illusion of superiority.”



We choose to believe stories we like, whether it is the story that we are “honest”, “smart” or that people live on the moon. Maria Konnikova in The Confidence Game notes the story of the Moon Hoax of 1835 that was printed in the latest technology of the times: Newspapers.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONNED? IF SO, YOU LIKELY WILL NEVER KNOW


There is only so much you can do because Konnikova notes that con artists play on who you are.

“What are you confident in? The con artist will find those things where your belief is unshakable and will build on that foundation to subtly change the world around you. But you will be so confident in the starting point that you won’t even notice what’s happened”


TECHNOLOGY GIVES CON ARTISTS SUPER POWERS


Konnikova writes that these same con men have a new modern friend: technology. She quotes a con artist who says:

“What I did fifty years ago as a teenage boy is four thousand times easier to do today because of technology. Technology breeds crime. It always has and always will”


Steven Hassan in his book Combatting Cult Mind Control says

“Mind-control organizations routinely sponsor websites that purport to provide help, empathy....Because vast amounts of personal information are now available online, cult recruiters (as well as ordinary scam artists) can now go online and develop extensive profiles about future targets”

CAN’T WE JUST USE FACTS? NO


That’s not how people work. We don’t care about information — at least at first. We like people and stories we trust most of all.

TOOLS TO USE

1. ARGUING — EVEN WITH GOOD FACTS — MAKES THINGS WORSE. DON’T DO IT.


Hassan notes that cultists have been preparing for you and your facts. When you come at them with facts, this is the fight they have been preparing for. They have their own facts. They want to battle you on twitter or wherever.

2. REALIZE YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE THE MORE POWERFUL ANIMAL MIND


Daniel Kaheman in Thinking Fast and Slow makes an important distinction between (1) our animal mind which is fast, instinctive and emotional and (2) our rational mind which is slow and logical. Turns out that a vast majority of our behaviors happen because of the first mental system. Focus on changing that first.

3. ESTABLISH RAPPORT


How do we avoid the animal mind going into fight or flight? How can we talk to the rational mind? Loving connection is the key but I need more specifics than that because I’m not so good at those things.

Turns out the new breed of FBI negotiators have learned a few touchy feely things.

Former FBI negotiator Chris Voss in his book Never Split the Difference says that the FBI needed a new playbook beyond rational arguments because “have you ever tried to devise a mutually beneficial win-win solution with a guy who thinks he’s the messiah?” Answer: you can’t

The FBI developed tools to “calm people down, establish rapport, gain trust, elicit the verbalization of needs and persuade the other guy of our empathy.” All of these are crucial and it starts by establishing rapport with these tools.



Konnikova says that any good con artist knows that a con “requires the creation of empathy and rapport...an emotional foundation must be laid before any scheme is proposed, any game set in motion. Only then does it move to logic and persuasion”

Hassan lists building rapport with cult members as the #1 key to unlocking mind control.

A. MIRROR TO ESTBALISH TRUST


Voss says “We fear what is different and are drawn to what is similar”

Dale Carnegie and Tony Robbins self-help gurus agree and have a lot to say about mirroring.

Who else does? Con artists! They see this as essential step.

FBI agent Voss and cult deprogrammer Hassan both list “mirroring” as the place to start building rapport. Things you can do to mirror

1. Similar clothing or appearance

2 . Imitate posture and other physical ways of being . Match a weak handshake with a weak handshake. Lean forward when they lean forward.

3. Listen and repeat the last 3 words (or the critical one to three words) of what someone just said.

I understand that these can seem manipulative and in the hands of con artists, they are but we can try to use these in authentic ways. For example, listening and repeating the last few words is also a nice way to actually listen to them. Which bring us to:

B. LISTEN TO THEM BEFORE THEY CAN LISTEN TO YOU. GET THEM TO SAY “THAT’S RIGHT”


Voss: “When individuals feel listened to, they tend to listen to themselves more carefully and to openly evaluate and clarify their own thoughts and feelings. In addition, they become less defensive and oppositional and more willing to other points of view”

Voss has a simple system, first label any objections using non-confrontational language:

“It seems like you are very angry”

ASK “HOW” AND “WHAT” QUESTIONS TO GET THEM TO ARTICULATE THEIR THINKING


The bad news is that there is no way that I know of to tell people what to think that works in the long term. Instead what you are trying to do is develop their sense of critical reasoning. Victory can simply be planting the seeds of doubt.

Dreamtimer
26th December 2017, 16:17
Here's a video about the psychology of self-deception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=YpEeSa6zBTE

NotAPretender
26th December 2017, 16:40
Here's some stuff about being conned and how difficult it is to both come back to reality and/or attempt to help someone else.


CULTS & CON ARTISTS GET US TO DO ALMOST ANYTHING AND THANK THEM FOR IT









HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONNED? IF SO, YOU LIKELY WILL NEVER KNOW



TECHNOLOGY GIVES CON ARTISTS SUPER POWERS





CAN’T WE JUST USE FACTS? NO



TOOLS TO USE

1. ARGUING — EVEN WITH GOOD FACTS — MAKES THINGS WORSE. DON’T DO IT.



2. REALIZE YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE THE MORE POWERFUL ANIMAL MIND



3. ESTABLISH RAPPORT






A. MIRROR TO ESTBALISH TRUST



B. LISTEN TO THEM BEFORE THEY CAN LISTEN TO YOU. GET THEM TO SAY “THAT’S RIGHT”



ASK “HOW” AND “WHAT” QUESTIONS TO GET THEM TO ARTICULATE THEIR THINKING

psychoanalysis 101...just about any 'con' will walk circles around those techniques. Two possible solutions to problems like this. Disengage or murder. I faced this conundrum daily with my ex.

Dreamtimer
27th December 2017, 15:10
There seem to be a lot of people who don't know psych 101 and are letting themselves be led around by the nose.

There are those who have come back from the edge, and so if these tools help bring a few more back, good thing.