A Collection of Research on Left-Wing Authoritarianism and Psychiatric Differences by Political Ideology

A review of the literature

by John Morrison

November 4, 2024

DARK TETRAD PERSONALITY TRAITS AND POLITICAL ORIENTATION

Academics typically link dark tetrad traits to conservatism but this could almost always be attributed to bias or poor methodology. A February 2024 systematic review of 28 studies using meta-analysis found dark tetrad traits were mostly unrelated to political ideology (with a caveat on sadism).

Alexandra Bartolo and Christopher Powell published “Associations between the dark tetrad and political orientation: A systematic review with meta-analysis” in February 2024. 

The authors write that “Previous studies suggest that the dark tetrad personality traits psychopathy, Machiavellianism, sadism, and narcissism may be positively associated with conservative political orientation. However, the effect sizes in these primary studies are heterogeneous.”

“In total, 28 studies were identified that reported zero-order correlations between at least one dark tetrad trait and political orientation.” 

1. “Findings showed no associations between political orientation and psychopathy, narcissism, or Machiavellianism.”

2. “Although sadism was very weakly associated with political orientation, this estimate was derived from a few samples.” 

“Neither sample (student vs general), political orientation measure (single- vs multiple-item), or political orientation construct (liberalism vs conservatism) significantly moderated the association between psychopathy and political orientation, but limited evidence suggested that the dark trait scale used did.”

Narcissism is distributed evenly across the political spectrum with “entitlement narcissism” higher among conservatives and “exhibitionist narcissism” higher among liberals, according to a 2018 study by Peter K. Hatemi and Zoltán Fazekas.

“Narcissism and Political Orientations” is a 2018 study by Peter K. Hatemi and Zoltán Fazekas published in the American Journal of Political Science. 

The authors found “narcissism evenly distributed across the political spectrum, with “entitlement narcissism” higher among conservatives and “exhibitionist narcissism” higher among liberals.” 

Michael Shellenberger writing about the study notes that “Conservative narcissists express a sense of undeserved entitlement based on class, race, or national identity, the scholars note, which they share with progressive proponents of identity politics.”

In 2010, a paper titled "The nature of the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes" claimed to find a strong positive correlation between conservatism and psychoticism. This error was repeated in subsequent papers by the same authors; however, around 2015, the authors acknowledged the correlation is actually negative and a correlation to liberalism.

Brad Verhulst, Peter K. Hatemi, and Nicholas G. Martin wrote in a September 2010 paper that “having a high Psychoticism score is not a diagnosis of being clinically psychotic or psychopathic. Rather, P is positively correlated with tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity, and authoritarianism.”

But their error was so notable that the incident has its own Wikipedia page from which the above heading is derived. The Wikipedia entry states the following:

1. “In 2010, Brad Verhulst, Peter K. Hatemi, and Nicholas G. Martin published a paper in Personality and Individual Differences arguing for the "third factor" explanation.” 

2. “In the course of their analysis, they calculated various correlations between various personality traits and various political attitudes.” 

3. “Among these published calculations was a correlation of +0.5 between psychoticism and conservative religious attitudes and a correlation of +0.6 between psychoticism and conservative sexual attitudes.”

The big problem, as Retraction Watch noted, was that,

• “The dataset used in the studies actually found that liberals scored higher on Psychoticism. From the erratum.”

The authors acknowledged that “the interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed.” 

1. “Thus, where we indicated that higher scores in Table 1 (page 40) reflect a more conservative response, they actually reflect a more liberal response.” 

2. “Specifically, in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck's psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.”

A 2020 study by Zoltán Fazekas and Peter K. Hatemi found a positive correlation between narcissism and political participation. In other words: The more narcissistic someone is, the more likely they are to contact politicians, sign petitions, donate money, and vote in midterm elections.

Eric W. Dolan wrote about the study for Psypost. He writes “The researchers examined data from two nationally representative surveys in the U.S. and in Denmark, with 500 and 2,450 participants in each, respectively, and a web-based U.S. survey with 2,280 participants.”

1. “All of the surveys assessed narcissism and eight types of political participation: signing a petition, boycotting or buying products for political reasons, participating in a demonstration, attending political meetings, contacting politicians, donating money, contacting the media, and taking part in political forums and discussion groups.”

2. “The surveys also collect information about voting behavior and sociodemographic variables such as gender, age, race, education, and political ideology.”

“The researchers found no relationship between narcissism and voting in general elections… But when it came to other forms of participation, including voting in midterm elections, those with more narcissistic personalities tended to report being more politically involved.” 

• “This was true even after the researchers accounted for a host of sociodemographic variables, including political interest.”

“Study author Pete Hatemi, a distinguished professor at Penn State University said:”

• “Our strongest results are on the first stages of participation, meaning those that set the agenda, get their voice heard, protest, join organizations, engage on social media, and take part in primaries and midterm voting. But for general elections, the influence is muted. This is certainly in part due to the higher turnout in those elections, and the many mobilization forces.”

A 2024 study found that people at different ends of the ideological spectrum and with different overlapping social characteristics are more affectively polarized. Narcissism appeared somewhat more important for out-group animosity than in-group affinity.

The authors note that their findings “can only show a correlation, not a causal relationship.”

“The more narcissistic the person, the greater their in-group attachment, out-group animosity, and out-group prejudice. This suggests that there are certain similarities between people who are affectively polarized.”

• “There is no effect of narcissism on positive perceptions of one’s own in-group, just on negative perceptions of the out-group.” 

“Affective polarization is generated by liking the in-group and disliking the out-group, but that does not mean that causes of affective polarization affect each aspect equally.” 

“Equally important is breaking down narcissism into its two aspects.” 

1. “We see that admiration, with its emphasis on self-importance and superiority, is, at most, weakly associated with a positive in-group identity.”

2. “On the other hand, rivalry, with its emphasis on entitlement, and thus antagonistic self-defense, plays a role in both positive in-group identities and negative out-group identities.”

TRAIT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES

Social psychologists believed that conservatives were motivated by sensitivity to threats and more prone to anxiety.

Scott A. McGreal wrote for Psychology Today in 2021 that “A long-running theory in social psychology, “motivated social cognition,” holds that conservative political beliefs are motivated by sensitivity to threat.” 

“This theory about conservatives claimed that high levels of death anxiety, system threat, and perceptions of a dangerous world each contribute to conservatism specifically, whereas people who are low in these attributes tend to have more liberal views (Jost et al., 2007).”

However, recent studies have revealed the opposite with one example showing left-wing economic-political beliefs correlated with higher rates of anxiety disorder symptoms

Scott A. McGreal wrote for Psychology Today in 2021 that “Based on this theory, a recent study (Helminen et al., 2021) tested whether conservative political views were related to having an anxiety disorder, as people with such disorders naturally tend to be sensitive to feelings of threat.” 

• “Additionally, the study aimed to test how sensitivity to threat might be related to various aspects of political beliefs, such as social attitudes (e.g., family values, abortion, etc.) and economic views (e.g., concern for inequality, environmentalism).” 

“Contrary to expectations, the study largely found that people with liberal economic views were more likely to suffer from anxiety disorders than their conservative counterparts.” 

1. “Results showed that higher overall anxiety symptoms at age 44 predicted concerns about inequality and the environment, distrust in politics, and lower work ethic at age 50.” 

2. “Similarly, concerns about inequality and the environment at ages 33 and 42 predicted higher overall anxiety symptoms at age 44.”

“Regarding more specific disorders, symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder and phobia, but not panic disorder, at age 44 predicted higher concerns about inequality and the environment at age 50.” 

• “Additionally, phobia symptoms predicted greater distrust in politics and a lower work ethic at age 50.”

“Similarly, concern about inequality at ages 33 and 42 predicted generalized anxiety disorder, panic (although this was significant at 42 only), and phobia at age 44.” 

• “The importance of family values had a less consistent effect: people with lower importance of family values at age 42 had higher overall anxiety and generalized anxiety disorder symptoms at age 44 only.”

“In summary, having an anxiety disorder was associated with some political views but not others. Specifically, over the long term, anxiety disorder symptoms were most consistently associated with higher concerns about inequality in particular and to a lesser extent with the environment, as well as political distrust and having a lower work ethic.” 

• “These views were more often associated with generalized anxiety disorder and phobia rather than panic disorder.”

Research on the Big Five personality traits has found that liberals are more likely to rate as open and neurotic. High neuroticism in particular is correlated with mental illness so this personality trait may be the explanation.

Scott A. McGreal wrote for Psychology Today in 2021 that the results from the 2021 Helminen study are “also consistent with another study using American data that found that people on the extreme political left reported higher rates of having mental disorders than people on the right.” 

1. “Research on the “Big Five” traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience has found that people identifying as politically liberal tend to be higher on openness to experience and neuroticism and lower on conscientiousness than their conservative counterparts (Fatke, 2017; Gerber et al., 2011).” 

2. “Additionally, surveys find that neuroticism is more strongly related to economics than social liberalism (Gerber et al., 2009).”

3. “People with mental disorders tend to be highly elevated in neuroticism and are often low in conscientiousness (Malouff et al., 2005).” 

4. “Generalized anxiety disorder in particular, which is characterized by pervasive worry about nearly everything, has been considered one of the purest clinical manifestations of neuroticism (Hale et al., 2010).” 

“Hence, it is not surprising that since people with liberal views tend to be higher in neuroticism and lower in conscientiousness than conservatives, they would also be at more risk of mental problems, including anxiety disorders such as generalized anxiety disorder.”

Some scholars have claimed that conservatives hold lower IQs but critics say this can be attributed to the liberal bias of academics. A more realistic view backed up by research is that people with lower IQs cluster around the extremes of ideology.

Scott A. McGreal wrote in 2013 that “some scholars (for example Stankov, 2009) have argued that conservative political ideologies tend to be associated with lower intelligence on average.” 

1. “Conservatives generally value tradition, respect for authority, and social order, and tend to be leery of innovation and change.”

2. “These scholars have argued that such values tend to be associated with cognitive rigidity and may therefore appeal to people who have difficulty with intellectual challenges that require them to process novel information.”

“Accusations of liberal bias among academics are often made and there does appear to be a degree of truth to these, especially among social psychologists (e.g. Prentice, 2012).”

“An alternative theory, originally proposed by Hans Eysenck, is that higher intelligence is associated with avoidance of extreme political views in general. Hence, more intelligent people are thought to be moderate or centrist in their political views.” 

• “The argument is that more extreme views, whether right-wing or left-wing, tend to be associated with dogmatism and rigidity, which are more appealing to less intelligent people.”

“A recent proponent of this view is Rinderman who argued that more intelligent people tend to have civic values that lead them to support political systems they believe will foster education and the growth of knowledge (Rindermann, Flores-Mendoza, & Woodley, 2012).”

1. “In support of this, Rinderman et al. cite findings from Great Britain and Brazil showing that people who expressed support for centrist parties (including center-right and center-left) had higher average IQs compared to those who supported more clearly left or right parties.” 

2. “An interesting finding from the study in Brazil was that people who had a political orientation at all tended to have a higher IQ than those who said they had no political orientation.” 

3. “This suggests that people who are more intelligent tend to be more interested in and informed about politics generally.”

A 2008 study found that intelligence was correlated with more extreme political views.

Scott A. McGreal wrote in 2013 that  “although Rinderman et al. found that more intelligent people tended to support more moderate views, an American study found the opposite effect.” 

“Kemmelmeier (2008) surveyed college students who scored above average in academic achievement tests (the SAT and ACT) and found two trends.” 

1. “There was a linear trend for more intelligent students to be less conservative overall, in line with Stankov’s findings.” 

2. “Additionally, there was a non-linear trend for the most intelligent students to support more extreme (left or right-wing) political views as opposed to more moderate ones, contrary to the findings of Rinderman et al.”

POLITICAL NEUROSCIENCE

A recent analysis of brain scans reveals significant differences in the brains of liberals and conservatives. A May 2022 analysis found that the empathy, reward, and retrieval tasks were most strongly predictive of political leaning.

Susan McQuillan wrote for Psychology Today in 2022 that “political and psychological researchers at Ohio State University, New York University, and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine can predict whether you are a conservative or a liberal through analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans.” 

In their study, “the researchers used fMRI data to analyze the brain activity of 174 volunteers, aged 18 to 40 years, and of varying political ideologies, while performing various tasks.” 

1. “The tasks involved emotional responses, memory retrieval, monetary (reward) incentives, and theory of mind, wherein the participant has to determine whether a statement is true or false.” 

2. “The researchers observed how functional connectivity networks in the brain differ between the two ideologies while performing different tasks and at rest.”

“These researchers found that the empathy, reward, and retrieval tasks were most strongly predictive of political leaning.” 

• “While data from most of the tasks indicated political leanings toward more moderate conservatism or moderate liberalism, the researchers found that the reward task aligned with extreme political views (very liberal or very conservative) and the empathy task most significantly correlated with moderate ideology.”

However, political neuroscience is a relatively new field and this study was unbalanced. It also doesn’t answer the question as to whether someone’s brain structure reflects their political ideology or if the functional structure of their brain decides their ideology (parents’ ideology is the strongest factor).

“This study was designed only to test the theory that differences in political ideology can be reflected by functional connectivity in areas of the brain, as seen in fMRI scans.” 

1. “The purpose was not to outline or analyze specific traits of either liberalism or conservatism.” 

2. “Generally, the strongest predictor of someone’s political leanings is considered to be the ideology of their parents.”

“Since the number of conservative and liberal participants in this study was significantly unbalanced, and the number of extremists very small, the researchers call for further study of the neurological differences in political ideology, particularly extreme attitudes and behavior.” 

“The big question these scientists want to answer is this: Does someone’s brain structure reflect the political ideology they choose, or does the person choose an ideology because of the functional structure of their brain?”

A 2023 study in Israel used brain scans to explore the differences in empathy between political liberals and conservatives. Liberals experience more empathy than conservatives when they imagine others suffering, but the authors make the same point that this isn’t evidence of a link to political ideology.

A July 2023 Psypost article discussed the new research, writing “study author Niloufar Zebarjadi and his colleagues wanted to explore whether brain activity during the time when an individual is believed to be experiencing empathy really confirms findings about the link between empathy and political ideology.” 

1. “They used a neuroimaging technique called magnetoencephalography (MEG) to focus on a brain region known as the temporal-parietal junction.”

2. “The study included 55 healthy participants recruited in Israel through social media. Thirty of the participants were male, and the average age was 25 years old.” 

3. “To measure the participants’ levels of empathy when imagining another person’s suffering, the researchers created two sets of experimental conditions and randomly assigned the participants to go through them.”

4. “The neuroimaging data captured patterns of brain activity that indicated participants were experiencing empathy. The researchers referred to this as the “neural empathy response.”” 

“They found that liberals exhibited a stronger neural empathy response compared to conservatives.” 

1. “This response was also associated with participants’ self-reported political beliefs and their acceptance of right-wing values.”

2. “In other words, those with a greater inclination toward left-leaning ideologies and less acceptance of right-wing values tended to have stronger neural empathy responses.”

IDENTITY POLITICS AND MENTAL HEALTH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS

Some 56% of liberal white women aged 18-29 have been diagnosed with a mental health condition according to a Pew research study in 2020, compared to just over 20% of conservative women in the same age group (note - this occurred during the pandemic).

Jonathan Haidt wrote for his Substack in 2023 that “Pew surveyed about 12,000 people in March 2020, during the first month of the Covid shutdowns. The survey included this item: “Has a doctor or other healthcare provider EVER told you that you have a mental health condition?” The results can be seen in the graph below.”

Haidt “asked him to redo it for men and women separately and for young vs. old separately.” 

• “Here’s the same data, showing three main effects: gender (women higher), age (youngest groups higher), and politics (liberals higher). The graphs also show three two-way interactions (young women higher, liberal women higher, young liberals higher).” 

George Yancey of Baylor University published research that shows identity politics results in the externalization of one’s locus of control which can lead to lower levels of well-being. A solution could be “a class-based progressive cognitive emphasis” that focuses less on group identity which generates “less of a need to rely on emotional narratives and dichotomous thinking.”

In October 2023, George Yancey, a professor of sociology at Baylor University, published “Identity Politics, Political Ideology, and Well-Being: Is Identity Politics Good for Our Well-Being?”

The New York Times summed up Yancey’s research, writing that Yancey, 

1. “Suggest(s) that identity politics may correlate to a decrease in well-being, particularly among young progressives, and offer an explanation tied to internal elements within political progressiveness.”

2. “By focusing on “political progressives, rather than political conservatives, a nuanced approach to understanding the relationship between political ideology and well-being begins to emerge.”

3. “Identity politics, he continued, focuses on external institutional forces that one cannot immediately alleviate.”

The New York Times continues,

• “It results in what scholars call the externalization of one’s locus of control, or viewing the inequities of society as a result of powerful if not insurmountable outside forces, including structural racism, patriarchy, and capitalism, as opposed to believing that individuals can overcome such obstacles through hard work and collective effort.”

• “As a result, Yancey wrote, “identity politics may be an important mechanism by which progressive political ideology can lead to lower levels of well-being.””

• “Conversely, Yancey pointed out, “A class-based progressive cognitive emphasis may focus less on the group identity, generating less of a need to rely on emotional narratives and dichotomous thinking and may be less likely to be detrimental to the well-being of a political progressive.””

Oskari Lahtinen, a senior researcher in psychology at the University of Turku in Finland, reinforces Yancey’s argument. His research found “there were large differences between genders in critical social justice advocacy” which tied into beliefs that other people and structures are more responsible for well-being than the individual.

Oskari Lahtinen, a senior psychology researcher at the University of Turku in Finland, published a March 2024 study that supports Yancey’s argument named “Construction and Validation of a Scale for Assessing Critical Social Justice Attitudes.”

The New York Times reports that “Lahtinen conducted two surveys of a total of 5,878 men and women to determine the share of Finnish citizens who held “critical social justice attitudes” and how those who held such views differed from those who did not. “Critical social justice proponents, on Lahtinen’s scale:” 

1. “Point out varieties of oppression that cause privileged people (e.g., male, white, heterosexual, cisgender) to benefit over marginalized people (e.g., woman, Black, gay, transgender).

2. “In critical race theory, some of the core tenets include that (1) white supremacy and racism are omnipresent and colorblind policies are not enough to tackle them, (2) people of color have their own unique standpoint and (3) races are social constructs.”

“Lahtinen found that the critical social justice propositions encountered:”

• “strong rejection from men. Women expressed more than twice as much support for the propositions. In both studies, critical social justice was correlated modestly with depression, anxiety, and (lack of) happiness, but not more so than being on the political left was.”

“In an email responding to the New York Times’s inquiries about his paper, Lahtinen wrote that one of the key findings in his research was that:”

• “There were large differences between genders in critical social justice advocacy: Three out of five women but only one out of seven men expressed support for the critical social justice claims.”

• “In addition, he pointed out, ‘there was one variable in the study that closely corresponded to external locus of control: ‘Other people or structures are more responsible for my well-being than I myself am.’”

MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS AMONG TEENAGERS DUE TO POLITICAL IDEOLOGY

Adolescents with very conservative parents are 16 to 17 percentage points more likely to be in good or excellent mental health compared to their peers with very liberal parents. This is down to effective discipline, responding to children's needs, displaying affection, and better quality relationships.

An Institute for Family Studies-Gallup report found that “political ideology is one of the strongest predictors” of which caregiving styles a parent adopts, and conservative parents are associated with the best mental health outcomes for their children.”

• “Only 55% of adolescents with liberal parents reported good or excellent mental health compared to 77% of those with conservative or very conservative parents.”

The Washington Examiner reports that study author Jonathan Rothwell, who is also the principal economist at Gallup and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote:”

• “Conservative and very conservative parents are the most likely to adopt the parenting practices associated with adolescent mental health… Liberal parents score the lowest, even worse than very liberal parents, largely because they are the least likely to successfully discipline their children.”

“Conservative parents have several key distinctions in their relationships with their children that inform mental health outcomes, Rothwell explained, including being able to:”

• “Effectively discipline their children, while also displaying affection and responding to their needs.” 

“The right-leaning parents also have better-quality relationships with their children,” 

• “Characterized by fewer arguments, more warmth, and a stronger bond.”

The study found that before 2012 there was only a small difference between conservatives and liberals and no sex differences. The most notable rise in depression and anxiety was among teenage girls.

Jonathan Heidt wrote about the study in a March 2023 Substack post, “Gimbrone et al. found that prior to 2012 there were no sex differences and only a small difference between liberals and conservatives.”

1. “But beginning in 2012, the liberal girls began to rise, and they rose the most.” 

2. “The other three groups followed suit, although none rose as much, in absolute terms, as did the liberal girls (who rose .73 points since 2010, on a 5-point scale where the standard deviation is .89).” 

American Affairs Journal

A team of Columbia epidemiologists has found evidence that while rates of depression have been rising among students of all political persuasions and demographics, they have been increasing most sharply among progressive students. The authors blamed Trump’s election and the Supreme Court but ignored that Republicans were not successful in 2012 when the trend took off.

The study found that the rise is most pronounced “among liberal girls from low-income families.” 

The authors claimed that “The reasons for these increases are unclear” but concluded:

• “Liberal adolescents may have therefore experienced alienation within a growing conservative political climate such that their mental health suffered in comparison to that of their conservative peers whose hegemonic views were flourishing.”

According to Columbia Magazine, the authors speculated “that left-leaning teens may have been deeply affected by Donald Trump’s election as president, the US Supreme Court’s subsequent lurch to the right, rising socioeconomic inequality, and worsening political polarization.”

The full list of reasons cited by the study includes:

1. “The first Black president, Democrat Barack Obama, was elected to office in 2008, during which time the Great Recession crippled the US economy (Mukunda, 2018), widened income inequality (Kochhar & Fry, 2014), and exacerbated the student debt crisis (Stiglitz, 2013).” 

2. “The following year, Republicans took control of the Congress and then, in 2014, of the Senate.” 

3. “Just two years later, Republican Donald Trump was elected to office, appointing a conservative Supreme Court and deeply polarizing the nation through erratic leadership (Abeshouse, 2019).” 

4. “Throughout this period, war, climate change (O’Brien, Selboe, & Hayward, 2018), school shootings (Witt, 2019), structural racism (Worland, 2020), police violence against Black people (Obasogie, 2020), pervasive sexism and sexual assault (Morrison-Beedy & Grove, 2018), and rampant socioeconomic inequality (Kochhar & Cilluffo, 2018) became unavoidable features of political discourse.” 

The authors say the rise of depression coincides with the spread of social media and claim conservatives are protected because “this group presumably benefits from the American cultural myth of an equal playing field. 

The Economist picked up the debate with the following reporting:

• “The authors of the study connected the rise of depression with the spread of social media. They also argued that conservative ideology may help protect mental health, for reasons that did not flatter conservatives:” 

• “This group presumably benefits from the American cultural myth of an equal playing field in which exceptional social positions are thought to be earned through hard work and talent rather than inherited through codified privilege.” 

• “Liberal adolescents, they wrote, may feel alienated in contrast to conservative peers “whose hegemonic views were flourishing”.”

Critics say the focus on social media is cynical. Even before 2012, when teenagers reported relatively stable mental health, young liberals, like older liberals, reported higher rates of depression. Skeptics of the authors’ hypothesis have noted that being conservative could confer psychological benefits.

The Economist adds “Conservatives tend to be healthier, more patriotic, and more religious, and to report finding higher levels of meaning in their lives… These characteristics correlate with happiness.”

Another hypothesis, advanced by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist, and Greg Lukianoff, a lawyer, is that liberals are performing reverse cognitive behavioral therapy on themselves.

The Economist writes, “the idea is that liberals are promoting not resilience and optimism about incrementally improving the world but catastrophic rumination about problems such as climate change and fearfulness of disagreement even on university campuses… Such habits of mind can deepen depression.”

Musa al-Gharbi, a sociologist at Stony Brook University, has noted that educated, affluent white liberals have come to endorse the idea that America is systemically racist, leading them to view other racial and ethnic groups more warmly than their own.

He wrote in the journal American Affairs.

• “This tension—being part of a group that one hates—creates strong dissociative pressures on many white liberals.” 

The Economist writes that a profound shift appears to be underway when it comes to excitement about change. Donald Trump has robbed liberalism of its transgressive glamor and made conservatism mean its opposite.

The Economist writes, “a profound shift appears to be underway when it comes to excitement about change.” 

Friedrich Hayek wrote in “The Constitution of Liberty” in 1960 in an essay entitled “Why I am Not a Conservative”:

• “One of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead.”

The Economist says of “Mr. Obama, whose 2008 summons to “hope and change” rhymed with his own biography, may have marked high water for this idea of American liberalism, as opposed to today’s progressivism.” 

• “President Joe Biden has negotiated potentially transformative legislation, but he presents himself as guarding against radical change.” 

The Economist continues, “Donald Trump has robbed liberalism of its transgressive glamor and made conservatism mean its opposite: disruption, subversion, a challenge to fuddy-duddies and the status quo—all that cool stuff. It’s kind of depressing.”

GLOBAL HAPPINESS TRENDS

In the 2024 World Happiness Report, the U.S. dropped out of the top 20 on the list for the first time in the report's 12-year history - the U.S. now ranks at No. 23, compared to No. 15 last year. The researchers say this is driven in part by a decline in how Americans under 30 feel about their lives.

CBS reports that “Gallup CEO Jon Clifton said the data from the report "offers more than just national rankings; it provides analytics and advice for evidence-based planning and policymaking.””

1. “The research team uses responses from people in more than 140 nations to rank the world's "happiest" countries, based on people's assessments of their overall satisfaction with their lives.” 

2. “Then to help understand the differences seen between countries, they look at six factors: the nation's healthy life expectancy, economy (GDP per capita), levels of corruption, social support, generosity, and freedom.”

CBS continues, “Gallup managing director Ilana Ron Levey told CBS News in an emailed statement:”

• "In the US, happiness or subjective well-being has decreased in all age groups, but especially for young adults.”

“Levey added that social connections are one key factor contributing to these generational disparities in happiness.”

• "The World Happiness Report and the Gallup/Meta social connectedness data show peak loneliness for younger Americans. It's widely recognized that social support and feelings of loneliness are influential factors in determining overall happiness, and these dynamics differ across various age groups. The quality of interpersonal relationships may impact the well-being of younger and older individuals in distinct ways."

In the US and Canada, rankings for people aged 60 and above are at least 50 places higher than for under 30s (older Americans ranked tenth globally in happiness, whereas younger Americans ranked 62nd). The reverse is true in many countries, especially in Central and Eastern Europe.

CBS reported on the researchers’ news release,

1. "The differences in the rankings by age illustrate how people's life satisfaction ratings — which determine the rankings — vary a lot between the world's young and old." 

2. "In places like the U.S. and Canada, for example, rankings for those 60 and older are at least 50 places higher than for those under 30. However, in many countries, particularly those in Central and Eastern Europe, the reverse is true: The young are happier than the old."

But the researchers warned that there’s been a worrying drop in happiness in Europe and North America and that many children are already “experiencing the equivalent of a mid-life crisis.”

Jan-Emmanuel De Neve is the director of Oxford's Wellbeing Research Centre and an editor of the World Happiness Report. CBS reports that,

• "Piecing together the available data on the well-being of children and adolescents around the world, we documented disconcerting drops, especially in North America and Western Europe. To think that, in some parts of the world, children are already experiencing the equivalent of a mid-life crisis demands immediate policy action.”

EXPLANATIONS FOR THE HAPPINESS GAP BETWEEN CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS

In a pair of studies, Canadian researchers found that neuroticism negatively correlated with conservatism which could explain the happiness gap.

The first study had two notable findings:

1. “A small but significant negative correlation between conservatism and neuroticism indicates that more conservative people reported being more emotionally stable than more liberal people.”

2. “There was a small but significant bivariate correlation between conservatism and well-being, such that conservative people reported higher life satisfaction.” 

• “This association, however, was rendered non-significant by accounting for conservatives’ lower neuroticism, higher conscientiousness, or higher religiosity.”

The second study found that:

1. “This study replicated the small but significant bivariate correlation between conservatism and happiness reported in Study 1, as well as the small but significant negative correlation between conservatism and neuroticism.” 

2. “This study also suggests that neuroticism on its own can account for the association between conservatism and happiness, as can SJ beliefs, income, and conscientiousness. When any one of these variables was accounted for, the correlation between conservatism and SWL was reduced to non-significance.”

Social psychologist Jaime Napier, Program Head of Psychology at NYU-Abu Dhabi says the belief in a meritocracy may explain the happiness gap and this belief is also a big predictor of political ideology in general.

Social psychologist Jaime Napier, Program Head of Psychology at NYU-Abu Dhabi has conducted research suggesting that views about inequality play a role. She told PBS:

• “One of the biggest correlates with happiness in our surveys was the belief in a meritocracy, which is the belief that anybody who works hard can make it. That was the biggest predictor of happiness. That was also one of the biggest predictors of political ideology. So, the conservatives were much higher on these meritocratic beliefs than liberals were.”

Real Clear Science writes “To paraphrase, conservatives are less concerned with equality of outcomes and more with equality of opportunity.”

1. “While American liberals are depressed by inequalities in society, conservatives are okay with them provided that everyone has roughly the same opportunities to succeed.” 

2. “The latter is a more rosy and empowering view than the deterministic former.”

Nick Haslam, a professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne, says a process of concept creep has amplified the perceived seriousness of a movement’s chosen social problem, as well as the prevalence of victims and perpetrators. Holding expansive concepts of harm were compassion-related trait values and left-liberal political attitudes. 

The New York Times reports writes that “Nick Haslam, a professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne, argued in his 2020 paper “Harm Inflation: Making Sense of Concept Creep” that recent years have seen ‘a rising sensitivity to harm within at least some Western cultures, such that previously innocuous or unremarked phenomena were increasingly identified as harmful and that this rising sensitivity reflected a politically liberal moral agenda.’”

“Haslam described this process as concept creep and argued that,”

• “Some examples of concept creep are surely the work of deliberate actors who might be called expansion entrepreneurs.”

“Concept expansion, Haslam wrote,”

• “Can be used as a tactic to amplify the perceived seriousness of a movement’s chosen social problem.” In addition, “such expansion can be effective means of enhancing the perceived seriousness of a social problem or threat by increasing the perceived prevalence of both ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators.’”

“Haslam cited studies showing that strong,”

• “Correlates of holding expansive concepts of harm were compassion-related trait values, left-liberal political attitudes and forms of morality associated with both.” 

“Holding expansive concepts of harm was also,”

1. “Associated with affective and cognitive empathy orientation and most strongly of all with endorsement of harm- and fairness-based morality.” Many of these characteristics are associated with the political left.

2. “The expansion of harm-related concepts has implications for acceptable self-expression and free speech. Creeping concepts enlarge the range of expressions judged to be unacceptably harmful, thereby increasing calls for speech restrictions. Expansion of the harm-related concepts of hate and hate speech exemplifies this possibility.”

THE MINORITY VIEW WHICH ARGUES AGAINST A HAPPINESS GAP

People's political conservatism was slightly correlated with their tendency to self-enhance. That effect is tiny but still big enough to explain away the happiness gap, according to a 2015 study.

Sciene Magazine’s reporting on the 2015 study states that “to get enough subjects to nail down this tiny statistical effect, the researchers used a website—YourMorals.org—open to people of any political persuasion.” 

1. “A total of 1433 people filled out and submitted not only the standard happiness questionnaire but also a series of questions called the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding.” 

2. “That instrument measures "the tendency to engage in self-deceptive enhancement." For example, people who highly agree with statements such as "I am fully in control of my own fate," or, "I never regret my decisions," are deemed to be self-enhancing.”

“People's political conservatism was slightly correlated with their tendency to self-enhance.”

The researchers measured self-enhancement and also measured how likely Republicans were to use negative words versus Democrats, and hired an expert to measure the smiles of people in Congress. I’d note that Obama was in power in 2015 which may explain the first trend, while the second “study” seems silly and could be tied to the point about Obama.

Sciene Magazine’s reporting on the 2015 study states that “the researchers also used two other measures to gauge the happiness of liberals and conservatives, neither of which indicated greater conservative happiness.”

“First, they used language-processing software to measure the positive and negative emotions of 47,257 tweets.” 

• “People who follow the Republican Party on Twitter were somewhat more likely to use emotionally negative words than were followers of the Democratic Party.”

“Second, the researchers hired an expert in facial expression analysis to examine the photos of current members of Congress.” 

• “Democratic members were scored as having slightly more genuine smiles than Republicans.”

UPSIDES OF LIBERALISM FOR MENTAL HEALTH

A July 2024 study found that liberalism is associated with its own mental upside: psychologically rich and interesting lives. It also found that happiness was associated with political conservatism and system justification, and meaning in life was associated with Protestant work ethic.

Medical Express reported on the study, the journal wrote that “psychologists have long found that conservatism is linked to happiness and meaning in life, but Erin Westgate, Ph.D., a University of Florida professor of psychology and co-author of the new study, said,”

• "No one was looking at a third dimension of a good life. A life full of a variety of enriching, perspective-changing experiences. Yes you want your life to be happy and meaningful. But you want it to be interesting as well.”

The study surveyed “thousands of people across the U.S. and South Korea. Westgate and her collaborators at other institutions replicated the established link between conservatism and both meaning and happiness.” 

• “But they found for the first time that a psychologically rich life is more associated with liberal traits.”

Medical Xpress continues, “the surveys focused on ideology, not partisanship. Although the questionnaires asked people to rate their conservatism or liberalism, they did not ask about voting preferences or alignment with political parties.”

1. “Happiness is associated with lots of positive feelings and good days.” 

2. “Meaning stems from feeling like you have made a difference and contributed to your community.”

3. “The third dimension, psychological richness—which Westgate and her co-authors defined in earlier research—is associated with new experiences and learning.”

“All three factors of "the good life" are correlated with one another. A happy person is more likely to lead a meaningful, psychologically rich life and vice versa.”

• “But by analyzing six different surveys within their single study, Westgate and her co-authors were able to uncover the underlying associations between political ideology and the three factors of a life well lived.”

LINKS BETWEEN PHYSICAL HEALTH AND POLITICAL IDEOLOGY

People with conservative political attitudes tend to have better health than their liberal counterparts because the former place greater value on personal responsibility, according to a 2019 study by Eugene Chan. This may also be a reflection of higher conscientiousness among conservatives.

Psychology Today reports on the study, “The author argued that conservatives tend to value personal responsibility more highly than liberals, and as a consequence engage in more health-related behaviors (e.g., not smoking, exercising more, etc.) that lead to better health.”

“In the first study, people recruited from Reddit rated their own political orientation on a 1–9 scale ranging from “very liberal” to “very conservative,” rated their own general health on a scale ranging from “extremely poor” to “extremely healthy,” and completed a measure of personal responsibility.”

1. “As predicted, all the measures were positively correlated, so those who were more conservative rated themselves as having better health, and placed a higher value on personal responsibility.”

2. “See the article for caveats.”

Psychology Today continues, “In the second study, conservatism vs. liberalism was assessed with political party affiliation. Specifically, participants, who were Australian students, were recruited who supported either of Australia’s two major political parties, the left-leaning Labor Party, or the right-leaning Liberal/National Coalition.”

1. “As part of the experiment, participants were told they would need to go up to the next floor of the building to get course credit and were given the choice of using the stairs or the elevator. Using the stairs was considered the healthier choice. Participants also completed a brief measure of personal responsibility.”

2. “Again, as predicted, conservative participants placed a higher value on personal responsibility and were more likely to use the stairs than the elevator than their liberal counterparts. Mediation analysis also suggested that party affiliation was related to health-related behavior (i.e. taking the stairs vs. the elevator) via the value placed on personal responsibility.”

A 2022 study found that better health among children under age 10 was positively related to conservative political ideology among adults over age 64.

Kannan et al. write in the 2022 study that, “Children with excellent health compared to very poor health were 16 percentage points more likely to report having a conservative political ideology in adulthood.”

Kannan et al. continue, “Children with excellent health compared to very poor health were 13 percentage points less likely to report having a liberal political ideology in adulthood… Adults who had excellent health as children were 30 percentage points more likely to report conservative ideology than liberal ideology.” 

“However, the difference in ideological position for adults who had very poor childhood health was negligible.” 

• “That is, the health and ideology relationship is being driven by those who were healthier early in life, after controlling for family income and material wealth.”

THE PROBLEM ACADEMICS FACE IN IDENTIFYING LEFT-WING AUTHORITARIANISM

Although right-wing authoritarianism is well documented, social psychologists do not all agree that a leftist version even exists.

The Rutgers University social psychologist Lee Jussim told the Atlantic,”

• “For 70 years, the lore in the social sciences has been that authoritarianism was to be found exclusively on the political right.”

Sally Satel writes for The Atlantic, “In the 1950 book The Authoritarian Personality, an inquiry into the psychological makeup of people strongly drawn to autocratic rule and repressive politics, the German-born scholar Theodor W. Adorno and three other psychologists measured people along dimensions such as conformity to societal norms, rigid thinking, and sexual repression.” 

• “And they concluded that “the authoritarian type of human”— the kind of person whose enthusiastic support allows someone like Hitler to exercise power—was found only among conservatives.” 

Satel continues, “In February 2020, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology held a symposium called “Is Left-Wing Authoritarianism Real? Evidence on Both Sides of the Debate.””

Satel notes that other psychologists arrived at the same conclusion.

1. William F. Stone: The Myth of Left-Wing Authoritarianism

2. John T Jost, Jack Glaser, Arie W Kruglanski, Frank J. Sulloway: Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer created the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale which remains “the gold standard for conceptualizing and evaluating all kinds of authoritarianism.” Altemeyer described left-wing authoritarianism as “the Loch Ness Monster of political psychology.”

Sally Satel writes for The Atlantic, “in the mid-1990s, the influential Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer described left-wing authoritarianism as “the Loch Ness Monster of political psychology—an occasional shadow, but no monster.””

• “Altemeyer’s right-wing authoritarian (RWA) scale remains “the gold standard for conceptualizing and evaluating all kinds of authoritarianism,” Emory University researcher Thomas H. Costello told the Atlantic.”

Eric W. Dolan writes in Psypost that “The RWA Scale was designed to measure psychological traits and attitudes that are associated with right-wing authoritarianism, such as,”

1. “A preference for strong leaders”

2. “A belief in traditional values and social hierarchies”

3. “A tendency to view people who are different from oneself with suspicion or hostility.”

Dolan continues, “The RWA Scale asks participants how much they agree with statements such as,” 

1. “It’s always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubts in people’s minds”

2. “Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.”

Dolan concludes, “Respondents rate their level of agreement with each statement on a scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.” 

• “Based on the responses, researchers can calculate a person’s overall RWA score, which reflects their level of authoritarianism.”

But critics say Altemeyer didn’t find left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) because he wrongly assumed it would be identical to right-wing authoritarianism. Nevertheless, the deference to Altemeyer’s findings has severely limited investigations and even the desire to investigate LWA.

Sally Satel writes for The Atlantic, “in the research that led to The Authoritarian Personality, Adorno and his colleagues developed an “F-scale” to measure fascist attitudes; Altemeyer later drew on that research to create a scale measuring right-wing authoritarianism by assessing certain personality traits—including feelings of aggression, willingness to submit to authority, and a quality that he called “conventionalism”—not strictly related to a subject’s political conservatism.” 

1. “But when Altemeyer later turned his attention to left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), he erroneously assumed it would be identical to the right-wing variety.” 

2. “His LWA scale barely identified any subjects. He either had set the threshold too high or was measuring the wrong attitudes.”

“Thomas H. Costello and his colleagues at Emory University (more below) say that,”

1. “The dominant view of RWA as the ‘gold standard’ of authoritarianism writ large is not merely an influential theoretical framework or a historical quirk.”

2. “It limits the questions we ask as scientists [and] the types of theories we use to interpret our results.” 

Satel continues, “For many years, what was perfectly obvious to many outside the field—that extremist mindsets exist on both ends of the political spectrum—was at best downplayed by the majority of social psychologists.”

• “An ideological monoculture within the discipline has damaged our collective understanding of political psychology—and, by extension, American politics.”

One reason left-wing authoritarianism barely shows up in social psychology research is that most academic experts in the field are based at institutions where prevailing attitudes are far to the left of society as a whole (this ties into many of the issues from the university briefing).

Sally Satel writes for The Atlantic, “That psychologists have been slow to acknowledge the existence of left-wing authoritarians at all is “puzzling,” Thomas H. Costello and his colleagues at Emory University write.” 

“But here is where the pronounced leftward orientation of researchers in social psychology comes in. According to a comprehensive 2014 review,” 

• “Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years.”

Satel continues, “Universities have long tilted to the left, but that tendency has deepened as education has become ever more highly correlated with political ideology.” 

1. “Whatever its origin, this political imbalance makes truth-seeking harder.” 

2. “Studies have repeatedly shown that investigators’ sociopolitical views influence the questions they ask.” 

3. “What’s more, ideologically concordant reviewers are more likely to rate abstracts and papers highly if the findings comport with their own beliefs, all else being equal.”

“Ideological blind spots can indeed affect researchers with a strongly conservative or merely right-of-center outlook, but there just aren’t enough of them to matter.” 

1. “If academic psychology had more viewpoint diversity, the political biases that distort researchers’ work would all counterbalance one another.” 

2. “In American universities today, those biases generally point in the same direction.” 

Satel continues, “In psychology, the belief that only conservatives can be authoritarians and that therefore only conservative authoritarians warrant serious study has proved self-reinforcing over the course of decades.”

• “Scholars who personally support the left’s social vision—such as redistributing income, countering racism, and more—may simply be slow to identify authoritarianism among people with similar goals.”

CONWAY, ZUBROD, CHAN, MCFARLAND, VAN DE VLIERT - 12 STUDIES ON LEFT-WING AUTHORITARIANISM

The authors conducted twelve studies that provide definitive scientific evidence of left-wing authoritarianism in the United States and beyond. The first two studies revealed that Americans identify many left-wing authoritarians in their lives.

A team of American and Dutch researchers carried out 12 studies on left-wing authoritarianism. The overall study, “Is the myth of left-wing authoritarianism itself a myth?“, was authored by Lucian Gideon Conway III, Alivia Zubrod, Linus Chan, James D. McFarland, and Evert Van de Vliert. Study author Lucian Gideon Conway III wrote,

• “It’s obvious to a lot of people that left-wing persons can be just as authoritarian as right-wing persons, and yet academics have been curiously reluctant to admit that, or even to show interest in studying it. We wanted to provide more definitive scientific evidence that left-wing authoritarianism was a real and pervasive problem, not just in the United States, but around the world.”

Psypost reports that, “The findings, published in Frontiers in Psychology, are based on data collected from more than 8,000 U.S. residents and more than 60,000 individuals from around the world.”

The “Twelve studies test the empirical existence and theoretical relevance of LWA.” 

1. “Study 1 reveals that both conservative and liberal Americans identify a large number of left-wing authoritarians in their lives.” 

2. “In Study 2, participants explicitly rate items from a recently developed LWA measure as valid measurements of authoritarianism.” 

In a series of eight additional studies, which included 8,487 participants in total, Conway and his colleagues found that those who scored higher on the LWA Scale tended to exhibit heightened levels of ecological threat, COVID-19 threat, belief in a dangerous world, and outgroup political threat.

The study authors write that,

1. “LWA is positively related to threat sensitivity across multiple areas, including general ecological threats (Study 3)”

2. “COVID disease threat (Study 4)”

3. “Belief in a Dangerous World (Study 5)”

4. “Trump threat (Study 6)” 

5. “Further, high-LWA persons show more support for restrictive political correctness norms (Study 7)” 

6. “Rate African-Americans and Jews more negatively (Studies 8–9)”

7. “Show more cognitive rigidity (Studies 10 and 11)” 

• “These effects hold when controlling for political ideology and when looking only within liberals, and further are similar in magnitude to comparable effects for right-wing authoritarianism.”

The authors continue that “Study 12 uses the World Values Survey to provide cross-cultural evidence of Left-Wing Authoritarianism around the globe.” 

• “Taken in total, this large array of triangulating evidence from 12 studies comprised of over 8,000 participants from the U.S. and over 66,000 participants worldwide strongly suggests that left-wing authoritarianism is much closer to reality than a myth.”

Eric W. Dolan, writing about the studies in Psypost, says “In many countries, especially those in Western Europe and South America, there was a strong link between being politically conservative and endorsing an authoritarian style of government.” 

1. “However, there were also many countries where being politically liberal was linked to endorsing an authoritarian government.” 

2. “The findings provide evidence that authoritarianism can exist in both conservative and liberal political systems around the world.”

THE EMORY UNIVERSITY STUDY ON LEFT-WING AUTHORITARIANISM

A study by Emory University researcher Thomas H. Costello and five colleagues established that authoritarian attitudes exist on both sides of the electorate. They established a new vocabulary for left-wing authoritarianism which includes anti-hierarchical aggression, top-down censorship, and anti-conventionalism.

Sally Satel writes in The Atlantic that, “Costello and his colleagues started fresh. Their study proposes a rigorous new measure of antidemocratic attitudes on the left.” 

• “And, by drawing on a survey of 7,258 adults, Costello’s team firmly establishes that such attitudes exist on both sides of the American electorate.”

• “They developed what eventually became a list of 39 statements capturing sentiments such as “We need to replace the established order by any means necessary” and “I should have the right not to be exposed to offensive views.”” 

Satel says that “subjects were asked to score the statements on a scale of 1 to 7.” 

1. “They showed a trait that the researchers described as “anti-hierarchical aggression” by agreeing strongly that “If I could remake society, I would put people who currently have the most privilege at the bottom.”” 

2. “By agreeing with statements such as “Getting rid of inequality is more important than protecting the so-called ‘right’ to free speech,” they showed an attitude called “top-down censorship.”” 

3. “They showed what the research team called “anti-conventionalism” by endorsing statements such as “I cannot imagine myself becoming friends with a political conservative.””

Satel summarises the study, “By recasting left-wing authoritarianism in more specific terms—anti-hierarchical aggression, top-down censorship, and anti-conventionalism—Costello and his colleagues offer other researchers and the general public a new vocabulary for discussing antidemocratic attitudes on that side of the political spectrum.”

Intriguingly, the researchers found some common traits between left-wing and right-wing authoritarians, including a “preference for social uniformity, prejudice towards different others, willingness to wield group authority to coerce behavior, cognitive rigidity, aggression and punitiveness towards perceived enemies, outsized concern for hierarchy, and moral absolutism.”

Sally Satel writes in The Atlantic that “Costello and his colleagues administered their new LWA index and Altemeyer’s original RWA scale.” 

• “Some differences emerged between left-wing and right-wing authoritarians; the former were more open to new experiences and more receptive to science than the latter, for example.” 

• “Yet the new research documents a large overlap in authoritarian structure—a “shared psychological core,” as the authors put it—between high scorers on their new LWA index and Altemeyer’s original RWA scale, which they also administered.” 

• “The authoritarian mentality, whether on the far left or far right, the authors conclude, exerts “powerful pressures to maintain discipline among members, advocate aggressive and censorious means of stifling opposition, [and] believe in top-down absolutist leadership.””

But most notable is that regardless of whether you’re an authoritarian progressive or Trumpist, your ideology is secondary and your authoritarian tendencies come first (Andrzej Łobaczewski makes the same point in Political Ponerology).

Satel says in The Atlantic that “Perhaps the most compelling insight emerged from trying to separate subjects’ political ideology from authoritarianism.” 

1. “They found that your ideology—whether you’re a progressive or a Trumpist—is a secondary matter.” 

2. “Whether your values and beliefs are authoritarian or not is more fundamental. “Psychologically speaking, authoritarianism comes first,” Costello told me.”

Costello says preliminary work shows that globally the ratio of left-wing to right-wing authoritarians is about the same. But he hypothesized that right-wing authoritarians outnumber left-wing authoritarians in the US by three to one.

Sally Satel quotes her conversation with Costello in The Atlantic, “Do left-wing and right-wing authoritarians exist in equal proportions?”

1. “It is hard to know the ratio,” Costello said, making clear that a subject’s receptivity to authoritarianism falls on a continuum, like other personality characteristics or even height, so using hard-and-fast categories (authoritarian versus nonauthoritarian) can be tricky. 

2. “Still, some preliminary work shows the ratio is about the same if you average across the globe.”

“In the U.S., though, Costello hypothesizes that right-wing authoritarians outnumber left-wing ones by roughly three to one.” 

• “Other researchers have concluded that the number of strident conservatives in the U.S. far exceeds the number of strident progressives and that American conservatives express more authoritarian attitudes than their counterparts in Britain, Australia, or Canada.”

ANN KRISPENZ AND ALEX BERTRAMS AND THE “DARK-EGO-VEHICLE-PRINCIPLE”

Research (comprising two studies) by European researchers of US participants found that left-wing extremism is linked to toxic, psychopathic tendencies and narcissism. Study authors Ann Krispenz and Alex Bertrams coined a new term for such psychological behavior: the “dark-ego-vehicle principle.”

Eric W. Dolan writes of the study in a May 2023 article for Psypost, saying “the authors built on the work of the Emory University team,”

• “By many researchers, the notion of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) is even been met with skepticism. Thus, we wanted to investigate LWA and its personality correlates using a recently published measure for LWA by Costello and colleagues (2022).”

Dolan continues, “narcissistic individuals and those with psychopathic tendencies are more likely to strongly endorse left-wing anti-hierarchical aggression, according to new research published in Current Psychology.” 

1. “Anti-hierarchical aggression refers to a specific type of hostility aimed at challenging or opposing hierarchical power structures or authority figures.” 

2. “The new findings shed light on psychological mechanisms that motivate some individuals to participate in violent political activism.”

The first study found a robust relationship between antagonistic narcissism and the LWA sub-facet of anti-hierarchical aggression. Surprisingly, the researchers found no relationship between LWA and altruism.

Dolan says, “their first study included 391 individuals with an average age of 46 years.”

1. “To measure narcissism, the researchers used the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory, a self-report measure with 60 items.”

2. “To assess proneness to socially desirable responding, the researchers used the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding.” 

3. “Left-wing authoritarianism was measured using the Left-Wing Authoritarian Index, a self-report measure with 39 items.” 

4. “Finally, the participants’ political orientation was assessed with a single item asking them to place themselves on a 7-point scale ranging from “extremely left-wing/far-left” to “extremely right-wing/far-right.””

“The researchers found that individuals high in LWA tended to have high levels of neurotic narcissism, which means they cared strongly about what others thought of them, experienced high levels of shame, and had a strong need for admiration.” 

• “Surprisingly, the researchers did not find a relationship between LWA and altruism, indicating that LWA and altruism are not strongly linked.”

Dolan continues, “However, after accounting for other factors like age, gender, and socially desirable responses, the relationship between LWA and neurotic narcissism became less significant.” 

• “On the other hand, a robust relationship between antagonistic narcissism and the LWA sub facet of anti-hierarchical aggression emerged.”

• “This suggests that individuals who endorse aggressive actions to overthrow those in power are more likely to exhibit traits of exploiting others for their own gain, lacking empathy, feeling entitled, being arrogant and manipulative, showing reactive anger, distrusting others, and seeking a thrill.”

The second study found that anti-hierarchical aggression was related to psychopathy rather than narcissism. This suggests that individuals endorsing violent actions to challenge hierarchy are more likely to exhibit psychopathic tendencies.

Dolan writes of the second study that, “the researchers further examined the relationship between narcissism and LWA, focusing specifically on the sub facet of anti-hierarchical aggression.”

• “They measured the dark triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy), social justice commitment, virtue signaling, and political orientation.”

“The results initially indicated that anti-hierarchical aggression was predicted by social justice commitment but not narcissism… However, when controlling for other factors, such as the other dark triad traits, age, gender, and virtue signaling, a different pattern emerged.” 

1. “Anti-hierarchical aggression was found to be related to psychopathy rather than narcissism.” 

2. “This suggests that individuals endorsing violent actions to challenge hierarchy are more likely to exhibit psychopathic tendencies.”

The study suggests that people with dark personality traits, like narcissism and psychopathy, are drawn to certain antagonistic ideologies and political activities. However, their motivation is not driven by a genuine desire for social justice but instead, to fulfill their ego-centered needs, a phenomenon the authors describe as the “dark-ego-vehicle principle.

Dolan writes in Psypost that “The authors say individuals with dark personalities are attracted to certain forms of activism:”

• “Based on our results, we introduced a new contribution to the literature on dark personality traits, coining the term dark-ego-vehicle principle (DEVP). According to this principle, individuals with dark personalities – such as high narcissistic and psychopathic traits – are attracted to certain forms of political and social activism which they can use as a vehicle to satisfy their own ego-focused needs instead of actually aiming at social justice and equality.”

“This activism allows for displays of moral superiority and social status:”

• “In particular, certain forms of activism might provide them with opportunities for positive self-presentation and displays of moral superiority, to gain social status, to dominate others, and to engage in social conflicts and aggression to satisfy their need for thrill-seeking.”

Dolan continues, “the authors are clear that this does not mean that activism is narcissistic:”

• “Most importantly, the dark-ego-vehicle principle does not mean that activism is per se narcissistic/psychopathic. It rather says that some forms of political activism can be attractive for narcissists/psychopaths; however, people also get involved in political activism due to their altruistic motives.”

“But the dark-ego-vehicle principle means that political activism is attributed to personality traits and not just political orientation:”

• “Secondly, the dark-ego-vehicle principle means that involvement in (violent) political activism is not solely attributable to political orientation but rather to personality traits manifesting in individuals on the (radical) left and right of the political spectrum. Accordingly, some individuals with high levels of antagonistic narcissism may be motivated to endorse either right- or left-wing ideological attitudes depending on which of these attitudes seems to be more opportune to them given a specific situation. Thus, it is necessary to argue very carefully in each case for what reason a specific dark personality should be attracted to particular forms of activism.”

Krispenz and Bertrams said that their new findings have important practical implications for activist groups who should beware of dark-personality individuals hijacking their cause. These individuals will be interested in keeping the perception of problems going and using the movement’s resources for themselves.

Finally, Dolan writes “the authors say activist groups should beware of narcissistic enemies from within their movement:”

1. “Assuming that the DEVP is valid, minority groups should be made aware of the narcissistic ‘enemies’ from within their activist movement, as these individuals could hijack the cause thereby reducing the success of the activism in many ways,” they explained. 

2. “As grandiose narcissists typically desire fame, distinction, elevated social status, and high social importance, they can be assumed to strive for influential positions that involve social visibility and outreach as well as access to financial and other resources.”

“The authors say such individuals will be interested in maintaining the perception of problems:”

• “While pretending to be prosocial, narcissists tend to have low empathy and to be primarily interested in satisfying their self-centered needs. Therefore, instead of striving for reasonable solutions, narcissistic individuals will rather be interested in keeping the perception of problems going to maintain their highlighted position.”

“Such individuals will also use the resources of the movements for their own private purposes which could harm support from the public:”

1. “Also, narcissistic individuals might use the resources of the activist movements for their own private purposes, thereby causing irreparable financial and reputational harm to the activist movement,” Krispenz and Bertrams told PsyPost. 

2. “The perception of such narcissistic behaviors within an activist movement might then lead to dwindling support for the activist movement by the public and – in the worst case – could even be wielded against the respective movement.”

A FEW THOUGHTS FROM POLITICAL PONEROLOGY

To individuals with various psychological deviations, the social structure is dominated by normal people and their conceptual world appears to be a “system of force and oppression”. If a good level of injustice exists, then pathological feelings of unfairness from deviants can resonate widely.

Łobaczewski writes, “most members of society feel entitled to protect their own persons and property and enact legislation for that purpose.” 

• “Being based on natural perception of phenomena, and on emotional motivations instead of an objective understanding of the problems, such laws in no way serve to safeguard the kind of order and safety we would like; psychopaths and other deviants merely perceive such laws as a force which needs to be battled.” 

“To individuals with various psychological deviations, the social structure is dominated by normal people and their conceptual world appears to be a “system of force and oppression”. Psychopaths reach such a conclusion as a rule.” 

1. “If, at the same time, a good deal of injustice does in fact exist in a given society, pathological feelings of unfairness and suggestive statements emanating from deviants can resonate among those who have truly been treated unfairly.” 

2. “Revolutionary doctrines may then be easily propagated among both groups, although each group has completely different reasons for favoring such ideas.” 

A certain kind of layering or schizophrenia of ideology takes place during the ponerization process. The outer layer is used for the group’s propaganda purposes to attract more normal people while the second layer is more hermetic, generally composed by slipping a different meaning into the same names and attracts more deviant types.

Łobaczewski writes, “the outer layer closest to the original content is used for the group’s propaganda purposes, especially regarding the outside world, although it can in part also be used inside with regard to disbelieving lower-echelon members.” 

“The second layer presents the elite with no problems of comprehension: it is more hermetic, generally composed by slipping a different meaning into the same names.” 

• “Since identical names signify different contents depending on the layer in question, understanding this “doubletalk” requires simultaneous fluency in both languages.” 

“Average people succumb to the first layer’s suggestive insinuations for a long time before they learn to understand the second one as well.” 

“Anyone with certain psychological deviations, especially if he is wearing the mask of normality with which we are already familiar, immediately perceives the second layer to be attractive and significant; after all, it was built by people like him.” 

“Comprehending this doubletalk is therefore a vexatious task, provoking quite understandable psychological resistance; this very duality of language, however, is a pathognomonic symptom indicating that the human union in question is touched by the ponerogenic process to an advanced degree.” 

These kinds of ideologies share certain factors: the motivations of a wronged group, radical righting of the wrong, and the higher values of the individuals who have joined the organization. In a world of real injustice, converts easily succumb to the degradation of the ideology.

Łobaczewski writes, “the ideology of unions affected by such degeneration has certain constant factors regardless of their quality, quantity, or scope of action: namely, the motivations of a wronged group, radical righting of the wrong, and the higher values of the individuals who have joined the organization.” 

• “These motivations facilitate sublimation of the feeling of being wronged and different, caused by one’s own psychological failings, and appear to liberate the individual from the need to abide by uncomfortable moral principles.” 

“In a world full of real injustice and human humiliation, making it conducive to the formation of an ideology containing the above elements, a union of its converts may easily succumb to degradation.” 

• “When this happens, those people with a tendency to accept the better version of the ideology will tend to justify such ideological duality.” 

“The ideology of the proletariat, which aimed at revolutionary restructuring of the world, was already contaminated by a schizoid deficit in the understanding of, and trust for, human nature; small wonder, then, that it easily succumbed to a process of typical degeneration in order to nourish and disguise a macrosocial phenomenon whose basic essence is completely different.”

The main operational theater for the (psychopathically corrupted) ideology consists of nations remaining outside the immediate ambit of the pathocracy since that world tends to continue believing in ideologies. That’s because the masses within a pathocratic system notice the attitude of the pathocrats and no longer believe in the ideology (e.g Communism’s enduring appeal in the West).

Łobaczewski writes, “a pathocracy’s ideology changes its function, just as occurs with a mentally ill person’s delusional system.” 

1. “It stops being a human conviction outlining methods of action and takes on other duties which are not openly defined.” 

2. “It becomes a disguising story concealing the new reality from people’s critical consciousness, both inside and outside one’s nation.” 

“The first function – a conviction outlining methods of action - soon becomes ineffective for two reasons:”

1. “On the one hand, reality exposes the methods of action as unworkable.”

2. “On the other hand, the masses of common people notice the contemptuous attitude toward the ideology represented by the pathocrats themselves.” 

“For that reason, the main operational theater for the ideology consists of nations remaining outside the immediate ambit of the pathocracy, since that world tends to continue believing in ideologies.” 

• “The ideology thus becomes the instrument for external action to a degree even greater than in the above-mentioned relationship between the disease and its delusional system.” 

Pathocracy survives thanks to the feeling of being threatened by the society of normal people. Pathocratic regimes and institutions will purge their own leaders if they feel that their behavior jeopardizes the existence of such a system.

Łobaczewski writes, “If the laws of normal man were to be reinstated, they and theirs could be subjected to judgment, including a moralizing interpretation of their psychological deviations; they would be threatened by a loss of freedom and life, not merely a loss of position and privilege.” 

1. “Since they are incapable of this kind of sacrifice, the survival of a system which is the best for them becomes a moral imperative.” 

2. “Such a threat must be battled by means of any and all psychological and political cunning implemented with a lack of scruples with regard to those other “inferior quality” people that can be shocking in its depravity.” 

“In general, this new class is in the position to purge its leaders should their behavior jeopardize the existence of such a system.” 

1. “This could occur particularly if the leadership wished to go too far in compromising with the society of normal people, since their qualifications make them essential for production.” 

2. “The latter is more a direct threat to the lower echelons of the pathocratic elite than to the leaders.” 

“Pathocracy survives thanks to the feeling of being threatened by the society of normal people, as well as by other countries wherein various forms of the system of normal man persist. For the rulers, staying on the top is therefore the classic problem of “to be or not to be”.” 

A pathocratic regime can never settle for its present possessions because a state of prosperity would inevitably result in the majority of normal people ousting the pathocrats. This adds to the earlier-mentioned theory on why psychopaths in activist groups must find evermore suffering.

Łobaczewski writes, “We can thus formulate a more cautious question: can such a system ever waive territorial and political expansion abroad and settle for its present possessions?” 

• “What would happen if such a state of affairs ensured internal peace, corresponding order, and relative prosperity within the nation?” 

“The overwhelming majority of the country’s population would then make skillful use of all the emerging possibilities, taking advantage of their superior qualifications in order to fight for an ever-increasing scope of activities; thanks to their higher birth rate, their power will increase.” 

• “This majority will be joined by some sons from the privileged class who did not inherit the pathological genes. The pathocracy’s dominance will weaken imperceptibly but steadily, finally leading to a situation wherein the society of normal people reaches for power.” 

“This is a nightmare vision to the psychopaths. Thus, the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of the majority of normal people becomes, for the pathocrats, a “biological” necessity.” 

• “Many means serve this end, starting with concentration camps and including warfare with an obstinate, well-armed foe who will devastate and debilitate the human power thrown at him, namely the very power jeopardizing pathocrats rule: the sons of normal man sent out to fight for an illusionary “noble cause.”” 

“Once safely dead, the soldiers will then be decreed heroes to be revered in paeans, useful for raising a new generation faithful to the pathocracy and ever willing to go to their deaths to protect it.” 

LEFT-WING AUTHORITARIANISM AND GRIEVANCES

A 2024 Australian study by Rachael Sharman and Savannah Love found that rather than overt interpersonal violence, more subtle forms of harm and social control were present among LWA movements. LWA may also be driven by being emotionally reactive and holding grievances. 

Robert J. Cramer writes in Psychology Today that the study “reviewed current LWA literature. Rather than overt interpersonal violence, this review highlights more subtle forms of harm and social control among LWA movements.” 

1. “For example, separate studies highlight strategies such as bullying or shunning those of differing viewpoints, as well as pushing LWA attitudes through censorship of others.” 

2. “These interpersonal rebuffs may be rooted in seeing threats everywhere and dogmatic adherence to one's ideology.”

3. “Interestingly, the same study showed that LWA may be driven by being emotionally reactive and holding grievances against others… LWA is also linked with signs of mental distress, such as symptoms of anxiety and depression.”

Another European study of social media users addressed how LWA may be specifically linked with perceived grievance and prejudice, the opposite of RWA.

Cramer continues, “LWA relates to the tendency to see sexism and White privilege in everyday life, as well as holding negative views of men… These patterns are nearly the exact opposite of existing evidence on RWA.”

The European study consisted of two studies: 

1. The first study “tested perceived grievance, identity-based ideology, and prejudice towards groups perceived as privileged, which positively predicted left-wing authoritarianism, with large effect sizes.” 

2. The second study “replicated our results on identity-based ideology and observed that social justice attitudes also positively predicted left-wing authoritarianism.” 

THE EMOTIONAL DYSREGULATION BEHIND PROGRESSIVE AUTHORITARIANISM

Haltigan believes that the culture of radical left politics derives not from grandiose narcissism but from vulnerable narcissism. Vulnerable narcissists tend to obsess over their own victimization and experience any criticism as a mortal wound.

Writing for Public, J.D. Haltigan, an independent scientist and researcher specializing in developmental and evolutionary psychopathology, says “the culture of radical left politics derives from narcissistic personality disorder but is of a less familiar type than the one we know best.”

1. “The one we’re most familiar with — the kind we associate with Donald Trump or Kanye West — is grandiose narcissism, which is essentially megalomania.” 

2. “The other kind is vulnerable narcissism.” 

3. “Unlike their grandiose counterparts, vulnerable narcissists tend to obsess over their own victimization, feel sorry for themselves but for nobody else, constantly seek attention from others, and experience even the slightest criticism as a mortal wound.”

Vulnerable narcissism is based on feelings which is why there’s no structure and it leads to chaos, whether in a one-to-one argument or on a social level. It also explains the catastrophizing evident in meaningless accusations of racism and injustice.

Haltigan continues,

• “It's all based on feelings. There's no structure. It's all just sort of this sort of plastic goo of emotion. And that leads to chaos when it's at scale. And that's what's happening in all of our institutions.”

• “Just as in a one-on-one argument with a radical leftist, at the organizational level, this chaotic swirl of feelings of victimhood, emotional fragility, and the desperate need for validation,” 

• “Create this sort of Left-wing, dysregulated way of silencing other people.”

Haltigan says, “this explains the catastrophizing we see in accusations of racism, injustice, or even genocide.”

• “You’re committing racism, you’re committing injustice, you’re committing genocide. And in the case of COVID, if you open up, you’re committing eugenics,” he said. “So it’s a feeling-based [relation] that gives the sort of license for this emotional dysregulation and left-wing authoritarianism to then be used against the quote-unquote vast normal population that knows these are isolated events or that you're not committing genocide.”

HISTRIONIC NARCISSISM BEHIND UNEQUAL SENTENCES OF JANUARY 6 AND BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTS

Psychologists and psychiatrists offer useful categories for thinking about the disparate treatment of January 6 and BLM protesters, such as grandiosity, emotional dysregulation, and a lack of empathy.

Michael Shellenberger and Alex Gutentag write for Public that “elites reacted with what psychologists call “grandiosity” and an impaired sense of reality in describing the failure of security as an insurrection.” 

1. “They reacted with “dramatic and erratic” behavior, betraying a kind of emotional dysregulation.” 

2. “And they engaged with a lack of empathy toward the January 6 protesters and with excess empathy toward BLM ones.”

Shellenberger and Gutentag say that, “Grandiosity, emotional dysregulation, and both lack of and excess empathy are characteristics of what mental health experts call “Cluster B” personality disorders, which include narcissism, histrionic, borderline, and anti-social (formerly psychopathy).” 

1. “Of those four, two of them, narcissism and histrionic personality disorders were particularly on display in regard to January 6 and BLM.” 

2. “While narcissism is characterized by the excess demand for attention, histrionic disorder is characterized by a melodramatic style reminiscent of Ocasio-Cortez’s reaction to the riots.”

Andrew Lobaczewski argues that it’s not enough to condemn totalitarianism, you must explain to the public how such psychopathologies are driving totalitarians.

Shellenberger and Gutentag cite Lobaczewski. They write “describing these characteristics and the ways in which they appear to motivate different behaviors is essential to preventing the rise of totalitarianism, argues a late Polish psychologist who lived under both Nazism and Communism, Andrew Lobaczewski.” 

• “In his book, Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil, Psychopathy, and the Origins of Totalitarianism, Lobaczewski argues that it is insufficient to merely condemn totalitarianism. To prevent totalitarianism’s rise, and hasten its fall, its opponents must explain to the public how such personality disorders, and psychopathologies in general, are driving totalitarian leaders.”

Brophy and Jordan Peterson have documented how psychopathologies have warped naturally empathic liberals so they have excess empathy for their side and none for their enemies.

Finally, Shellenberger and Gutentag write that “as psychologist Brophy and her mentor, Jordan Peterson, have documented, liberals tend to be more empathic than conservatives.” 

“But the rise of Cluster B has warped this empathy for many progressives, resulting in excess empathy for people on their side, and those who they classify as victims, and an absence of empathy for their political opponents, and those who they classify as oppressors.”

THE NARCISSISM AND PSYCHOPATHY OF SEIZING TRUMP’S ASSETS (TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME)

Trump Derangement Syndrome is analogous to infantile regression, as described by Sigmund Freud and his daughter, Anna. 

Michael Shellenberger and Alex Gutentag write for Public that “they argued that psychologically speaking, many adults “regress” to their childhood when under stress. Psychologist Cynthia Vinney in 2022 noted.”

• “Like children, adults sometimes regress, often as a temporary response to a traumatic or anxiety-provoking situation.” 

Shellenberger and Gutentag say that “the stress for the Democrats prosecuting, convicting, and sentencing him, was Trump as president… Attempting to take nearly $500 million in a trumped-up civil fraud case constitutes a kind of tantrum of highly entitled people.” 

• “Imposing a historically unprecedented fine on the front-running presidential candidate for business activities that resulted in no victim is a behavior of people who feel highly entitled.”

Such entitlement is a key characteristic of narcissism, which is rising in the culture and is near-identical to what Swiss researchers identified as left-wing authoritarianism. 

Ann Krispenz and Alex Bertrams conclude in their March 2023 study that “some leftist political activists do not actually strive for social justice and equality but rather use political activism to endorse or exercise violence against others to satisfy their own ego-focused needs.”

Shellenberger and Gutentag write that “people who espouse left-wing views and want censorship and repression of their political enemies believe and behave are entitled… When such entitlement is combined with fear, left-wing authoritarians regress into childlike behaviors.”  

The Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published the results from two large studies, which supported the finding that left-wing ideology is correlated with unhappiness.

The authors reported that,

• “In both studies, critical social justice” views were “correlated with depression, anxiety, and (lack of) happiness…. The critical social justice attitude scale was successfully constructed and validated. It had good reliability and model fit.”

Shellenberger and Gutentag continue, “the New York civil fraud case adds to the growing list of Democrats’ attacks on the democratic process and weaponization of government.” 

1. “Like attempts to remove Trump from the ballot, the effort to punish Trump by seizing his assets is part of a larger goal to discourage, demonize, and criminalize political prosecution.” 

2. “This is increasingly dangerous for the stability of our democratic system.”

In his book Political Ponerology, the late Polish psychologist Andrew M. Lobaczewski argues that totalitarianism is the result of narcissists and psychopaths taking over major societal institutions, from the universities to the justice system. That is what appears to be happening now.

Michael Shellenberger and Alex Gutentag write that “if an Attorney General and a Judge can seize $464 million in assets from the presidential front-runner for an alleged crime that has no victim, then it would be more accurate to say that we have only a single political system—and no true justice system at all.” 

They continues, “Worse, that system is rapidly becoming psychopathological… Democrats are abusing their powers and weaponizing the government because they are largely blind to how their behaviors are perceived by others. Argues Vinney.” 

• “The individual may be unaware their behavior is regressive, even though to the outside observer the immaturity of their actions may be quite obvious.”

Psychologists, including Vinney, argue that the way to challenge infantile regression, narcissism, and authoritarianism is to point it out.

Michael Shellenberger and Alex Gutentag write that “one must tell the “adult that their behavior is uncharacteristically childish or age-inappropriate,” explains Vinney. Doing so, she says, “will enable them to recognize what they're doing and determine how to respond to whatever is causing them distress in a more productive way.””

“Among American investors, O’Leary has been doing this nearly singlehandedly. Referring to Judge Endorgon’s sentence, O’Leary said:”

1. “This was a dress-up court with kids running some kind of Halloween party with no adult supervision.” 

2. “In another interview, he said, “The whole world is watching, and everybody's waiting for one thing we haven't got yet. Adult supervision. Where is it? Where are the adults in this crazy narrative? …We need an adult in the room now.””

NARCISSISM OF THE CLIMATE APOCALYPSE

Since the seventies, the narcissism of the Left has become significantly more outer-directed, status-oriented, and focused on the coming apocalypse. Such exhibitionist narcissism, write the political scientists, “captures one’s need to be the center of attention, often at the expense of others.

Michael Shellenberger wrote for Public News in September 2022 that “narcissistic exhibitionism manifested strongly in politics during the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s, whereby liberal young people imagined they would rid the world of nuclear weapons through street protests, documentary filmmaking, and other forms of public advocacy.” 

• “With the end of the Cold War, and the greatly diminished risk of nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia, apocalyptic fears shifted from nuclear war to climate change.”

“Since the seventies, the narcissism of the Left has become significantly more outer-directed, status-oriented, and focused on the coming apocalypse.”

1. “Apocalyptic environmentalism is exhibitionist to the point of Messianic.” 

2. “Adherents demand to be recognized for their supposedly unique insight into the “climate emergency.”” 

3. “They demand to be rewarded with cultural, economic, and political power to save the planet.” 

“Such exhibitionist narcissism, write the political scientists Peter K. Hatemi and Zoltán Fazekas,” 

• “Captures one’s need to be the center of attention, often at the expense of others; this includes expecting greater attention be given to one’s issues, opinions and values.”

The increasing overprotection and coddling of children by adults also contributed to rising narcissism, according to the psychologist Jean Twenge, drawing on a large body of survey data across six decades. 

Shellenberger continues, “parents raise children to have standards of success they cannot reach, which fuels anxiety and depression… Twenge’s work offers insight into how people higher in narcissism seek to overcompensate for their insecurity with grandiosity.” 

Shellenberger writes that “from this research, one can gain a better view of how rising narcissism has contributed to increasing belief in a coming climate apocalypse.” 

• “The rising overprotection and coddling of children by their parents and other adults result in anxious, depressed, and grandiose adolescents and young adults who, in their search for purpose and meaning, imagine that they, as individuals and a generation, will save the world.”

Shellenberger says “the greater need one feels to be a world savior, the greater one insists that we are on the verge of an apocalypse.” 

1. “Children who were abandoned or abused, and thus suffered a kind of “narcissistic wound,” but who were also spoiled, can end up with a deeply Messianic impulse.” 

2. “It thus makes sense that those children who were both coddled and wounded by their parents would emerge as the climate movement’s most powerful leaders.”

NARCISSISM IN CLIMATE AND WOKE VICTIM MOVEMENTS

Israeli psychologist and narcissism expert, Sam Vaknin, says “We have transitioned from the age of dignity to the age of victimhood”. But worse, where victimhood movements in the past were goal-oriented, today they are narcissistic and mostly about grandiosity.

Vankin says,

• “Every single political and social movement nowadays has converted itself into a victimhood movement. Many ideologies, which were not victimhood-oriented, have become victimhood-oriented.”

However, 

• “In the past, victimhood movements, for example, the civil rights movements in the United States, were not narcissistic. They were actually goal-oriented, purpose-oriented. Today most victimhood movements are about grandiosity.”

“Vankin says this is dangerous because these victimhood movements have become narcissistic which means they are entitled and lack empathy.”

• “This is an exceedingly dangerous phenomenon because narcissism is about a lack of empathy. It's about entitlement. And it’s exploitative. ‘I'm a victim, so I'm a saint. I'm morally superior to you. I have a right because I have a grievance. I'm entitled. You have an obligation towards me.’”

One way to overcome this issue is to provide alternatives to grandiosity. So if, for example, someone's grandiosity is invested in their victimhood, they could redirect their grandiosity towards overcoming victimhood. The Civil Rights Movement illustrates this with its song “We Shall Overcome.”

Vankin says, 

• “If you say, ‘I've been the victim of an abuser. It's horrible. I'm morally superior because of my abuse. It was wrong morally, and I've been right.’”

“But Vankin says overcoming this victimhood can redirect your grandiosity,”

• “You could say, “Well, maybe you can overcome your victimhood. Maybe you're strong, maybe you're resilient. Maybe you have untapped resources and you can overcome your victimhood and your suffering and then teach others. This is a form of redirecting grandiosity.”

Vank highlights that,

• “We need to redirect public discourse away from compensating for victimhood toward a discourse of overcoming. This was the original message of the civil rights movement. You remember the song, “We Shall Overcome”? This was the original message. They didn't ask for money. They didn't ask for affirmative action. They didn't ask for any of this bullshit. They just asked to be treated equally and unfairly, and they agreed to do the job themselves of reconstituting their lives and overcoming. Triumphing!”

NARCISSISM OF THE FACT-CHECKERS 

Fact-checkers demonstrate what is known as the “third person effect,” which is the tendency for some self-centered individuals “to perceive that mass-media messages have only minimal influence on them but greater influence on other people.”

Michael Shellenberger writes for Public that “there is a psychological aspect to fact-check-based censorship. Many fact-checkers appear blind to the possibility that they themselves might be censored and believe they are somehow immune to deception.”

“First Amendment Scholar Clay Calvin argues individuals who exhibit third-person effects tend to favor censorship in the name of safety.” 

• “[The] effect has both a perceptual aspect (what we believe about the influence of messages) and a behavioral component (censorship).”

Shellenberger continues, “When fact-checkers perceive they have unique abilities to discern truth from fiction and project such perceptions onto the public, the third-person effect can begin to bleed into narcissism.”

Christine Brophy says that fact-checkers derive power from their outsider/victim narrative which “is being used as a heuristic for blanket trust and understanding.”

Shellenberger writes that, “psychologist Christine Brophy, who wrote her master’s dissertation on political correctness and leftist authoritarianism, says the people demanding censorship,”

• “Are manipulative. They parrot your value statements back to you, but their actions are truly motivated by vindictiveness, resentment, and self-importance.”*

*The speech marks never closed in the original article but I assume this is the correct quote.

“What, in the end, is giving the fact-checkers their power? Victimhood ideology, say psychologists. Brophy says,”

• “Their outsider/victim narrative is being used as a heuristic for blanket trust and understanding.”

The people demanding more censorship are manipulative, exhibiting “Dark Triad” behaviors of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. But because they’re among Democrats, a group high in openness and compassion, no one is questioning their behavior.

Christine Brophy says,

• “They gravitate to organizations, roles, and lines of action where minimal real work is required to gain control and influence. It’s a dangerous combination when they're placed in the middle of a group of people that are high in Openness and Compassion (Democrats). No one is asking the question ‘What are you really up to here.’”

While the language of fact-checking is powerful, it’s also limited,” noted the Columbia Journalism Review recently. Its author, Greg Marx, noted that “the fact-checkers tendency to stretch that language beyond its limitations undermines the credibility of their project."

Michael Shellenberger concludes that “Public found that underneath the arrogance, fact-checkers are plainly insecure. Neither the MIT researchers who claim that fake news travels six times faster than real news, nor the journalists who cited that number, or the FDA which repeated it, returned our emails or phone calls.” 

• “Their silence may reflect their own lack of confidence.”