Social Status: Differences in Desire and Attainment
Intelligence, personality, Dark Triad traits, and more
We’ve so far been discussing status as a universal human motive.1 Plenty of evidence suggests that this is indeed the case: Everyone is motivated, to varying degrees, to pursue the respect and admiration of other people.
There are some individual differences, though. Some people desire status more than others. You can think of it as akin to hunger. Everyone needs food. The desire for food is a fundamental drive. But some of us experience the pangs of hunger more frequently than others, and the intensity of this feeling varies from person to person. The same is true of status.
The intensity of desire for status and its pursuit is associated with various traits we’ll be discussing in this lecture.
We’ll speak about intelligence, the Big Five personality traits, a concept known in social psychology as self-monitoring, the Dark Triad personality traits, the Light Triad personality traits, age, and more.
Before we continue, I should clarify something. We’ll be discussing various traits in terms of averages. We’ll be speaking in generalities. Naturally, with social scientific phenomena, there will be exceptions to statistical relationships. And often, the relationships between variables will be small to moderate in magnitude.
Most guys are shorter than the typical WNBA player. Yet this does not refute the fact that men are, on average, taller than women. Just because you can think of an exception to something does not negate the fact that, on average, differences exist.
Being very tall is a powerful predictor of being drafted into the NBA. But there are lots of very tall people who never set foot on a basketball court. Just because one variable does not perfectly predict another does not negate the fact that a significant relationship exists between them.
Let’s keep this in mind as we move forward.
Let’s start with intelligence. Here’s a good working definition of intelligence from the psychologist Arthur Jensen:
“Assimilation of experience (i.e., learning) into cognitive structures which organize what has been learned in ways that subsequently permit quick and adequate retrieval and broad transfer of the learning in new relevant situations. Stated in simplest terms…the process of understanding what one has learned. It is ‘getting the idea,’ ‘catching on,’ having the ‘Aha!’ experience that may accompany or follow experiencing or learning something, and the relating of new learning to past learning and vice versa.”
Intelligence encompasses how quickly and efficiently you can draw from your existing base of knowledge, grasp novel information, integrate that novel information into your existing knowledge base, and implement what you have learned to achieve your goals.
Intelligence is indeed a strong predictor of status. Many people are aware that IQ is tightly correlated with income. Intelligence also consistently predicts leadership attainment. People generally grant smart people a high level of status. And they prefer individuals in high positions to be smart.
By the way, it is actually good that smart people hold prominent positions.
Suppose there was no link between intelligence and high status. This would not bode well.
If you want a functional society, it’s wise to screen for people who are good at absorbing and synthesizing information and place them into positions where they hold influence and power. Of course, intelligence does not guarantee that a person will be ethical or competent at their specific job. But intelligence is, generally speaking, necessary but not sufficient for someone to be effective in a high stakes position.
Intelligence on its own is not enough to be a wise and effective leader, but meeting a minimal threshold is a suitable requirement.
Interestingly, education is correlated with a high need for status. It seems that when people attain educational credentials, it raises their expectations of themselves, and propels a desire for recognition and regard. On the other hand, it’s also possible that people who are naturally inclined to chase status are more likely to obtain educational credentials in their quest for esteem. These two ideas—that education increases desire for status and people who desire status chase education—are not mutually exclusive.
I suspect that being in an environment of high achievers, with people who are pursuing education, will boost your own desire for status. This is one reason why there is so much status anxiety on college campuses. Especially at highly selective colleges. These students are already very accomplished, yet being around other highly ambitious and accomplished students can provoke feelings of inadequacy.
Can you have too much intelligence?
If you’re interested in attaining social influence and attracting a romantic partner, the answer might be yes.
The psychologist Dean Simonton has conducted research suggesting that a person is most likely to appeal to others and gain followers if they have an IQ of around 119 (roughly the 90th percentile of intelligence). This is higher than the typical college graduate, who has an IQ of about 110. But 119 is also lower than the typical graduate of a highly selective university, which is around 125.
119 seems to be the sweet spot. Interestingly, this is also the case for dating. All else being equal, people report that they are the most attracted to people at about the 90th percentile of intelligence, which is around 120 IQ. People want leaders and romantic partners who are smart. But not too smart.
Simonton and others have suggested that a person has leadership appeal if they are able to understand ideas from very intelligent people and can also communicate with ordinary people.
Very intelligent individuals have difficulty relating to the thought patterns and concerns of most people. Relatedly, I recall a psychologist who once suggested that in U.S. general presidential elections, the less intelligent candidate tends to win. This wasn’t a formal study, just speculation. But generally, it strikes me as correct. By the time you achieve the nomination of a major political party, you have already proven that you are smarter than average. But with two smart people, the one who is better able to relate to ordinary people has the advantage.
We’ll now move on to the Big Five personality traits.
Many people are familiar with this framework. The acronym “OCEAN” helps to remember each trait.
First, there’s Openness. People high on this trait tend to be more entrepreneurial and creative. They enjoy seeking information from a variety of sources. They’re more likely to get tattoos and piercings. They’re more likely to relocate for work or school. They usually obtain more education and tend to have relatively few children. In terms of tastes, they tend to enjoy philosophical novels and surrealist films.
Then there’s Conscientiousness. People high on this trait are hard-working and disciplined. They are punctual, have greater job satisfaction, save more money, stick to their exercise routines, and set high standards for themselves. Interestingly, they are also more likely to use discourse markers and filled pauses in their speech. They’re prone to say “uh” and “um” and “you know” and “like.” This may be because impulsive (less conscientious) people are more likely to speak quickly without pausing to process and formulate their thoughts. In contrast, less impulsive people (more conscientious) use these discourse markers in order to pause and think about what to say next. In terms of tastes, they like books about history and leadership. And they enjoy films involving weddings and fist fights—I suspect there’s a gender difference there.
Next up is Extraversion. People with high extraversion scores enjoy social attention. They are more likely to take on leadership roles, are more cooperative, and tend to have more friends and sex partners. They tend to be physically stronger than introverts, perhaps in part because they engage in more frequent exercise and physical activity. Extraverts also drive faster and get into more car accidents than introverts. They favor memoirs and books about social relationships, and enjoy comedies and movies about dating and friendship. Whereas introverts tend to be drained by social interaction, extraverts are energized by being around people.
Then there’s Agreeableness. Agreeable people try to avoid conflict and favor negotiation and compromise. They like harmonious social environments and want everyone to get along. They score highly on empathy and spend more time volunteering to help people in need. They are likely to withdraw from conflict and care a lot about being accepted and liked. They like books about family and relationships, and conventional feel-good movies.
Finally, there’s Neuroticism, or what’s sometimes called “Emotional Stability,” which is the reverse of neuroticism. The hallmark of this trait is mood variability. Neuroticism captures how much people’s emotional tickers swing up and down. People high on neuroticism tend to react strongly to everyday setbacks and minor frustrations. They are more prone to depression and anxiety. People high on neuroticism enjoy plots involving alternative realities, sad stories, paranormal stories, and science fiction.
There’s another personality model that is also growing in popularity called the HEXACO model. This has six factors: Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience.
There’s a lot of overlap between the HEXACO model and the Big Five.
One notable difference, though, is that the HEXACO models contains an Honesty-Humility factor, which is not a part of the Big Five. Honesty-Humility captures how fair and sincere someone is when dealing with others. It’s similar to trait Agreeableness. But not quite the same.
Agreeableness, roughly, measures how willing you are to interact with and cooperate with someone who might exploit you or take advantage of you.
Honesty-Humility, in contrast, is about how willing you are to exploit or take advantage of someone else.
In any case, the HEXACO model is a useful framework, but we focus on the Big Five in these lectures, because is the most widely used and agreed upon model of personality.
Status arises from two factors: Our peers’ judgments of us and our own motivation and ability to acquire status.
Motivation and ability varies from person to person. So it’s worth asking which personality traits help people to attain status.
Before we look at this question, I want to make clear that a lot of our status-seeking behaviors are not necessarily consciously enacted. Much of our behavior operates at the pre-attentive level. Our unconscious quietly propels us to do things that aid us in our goals. In fact, conscious awareness is calorically costly, and evolution wisely made most of our desires and actions unconscious.
Here's an analogy. A single-celled organism has no idea of the reasons why it behaves as it does. Yet we still speak about single-celled organisms with phrases like “It wants nutrients” or “It is seeking sustenance,” despite the fact that it has no conscious awareness of this desire. Most organisms behave this way, including humans. Of course, sometimes humans do have some awareness of the reasons behind their goals and desires and behaviors. But usually not. Typically we just act in the moment with little understanding of the evolutionary underpinnings of our feelings and desires and behaviors.
Let’s turn to extraversion. This personality trait does indeed seem to predict status attainment. One classic study found that within only a few minutes of strangers interacting with one another, a clear social hierarchy emerged. Typically, the person who rose to the top of these hierarchies was more extraverted. A person who simply talks more, who is more assertive, is often perceived by others to be better suited to a leadership role. This doesn’t mean extraverts are actually better leaders, only that they are more salient and people’s attention naturally turns to them, which holds relevance when it comes to deciding who to promote or designate as a leader.
Other studies do suggest extraverts can be better leaders, because they are often more sociable, approachable, and verbally expressive. Sometimes introverts can be cold and standoffish, which are not always the best qualities to have when you are managing relationships with large numbers of people.
There’s a small to moderate correlation between extraversion and income. This is especially true in vocations that involve lots of social interaction or talking, such as consultants or sales roles. One classic study found that a 1 standard deviation boost in extraversion, relative to the average, was correlated with about half a million dollars more in terms of lifetime career earnings.
There’s no correlation between extraversion and IQ. However, when people think of the smartest person they know, their minds might jump to an extraverted person, simply because people who are smart and extraverted are more likely to announce themselves, to take the spotlight, and advertise their intellect. An intelligent introvert might not spend a lot of time broadcasting their ideas and insights.
Extraversion also correlates with the pursuit of status at a moderate to high level. One reason extraverts spend so much time schmoozing and befriending lots of people is because they enjoy being well-regarded and draw energy from being known by so many people.
What about Agreeableness?
For this trait, there is an inverse correlation with status. That is, disagreeable people are more likely to pursue and attain status.
There is a small to moderate correlation between disagreeableness and income, such that individuals with low agreeableness are slightly more likely to achieve higher earnings.
A 2018 study of high IQ individuals over the course of their lives found that agreeable men earned $267,000 less over the course of their careers, relative to the average person in the sample.
Agreeable people are less likely to be nominated as leaders. This is because they have less desire for status.
Disagreeable people crave status more; they value agency more than communion. They generally prefer getting ahead more than getting along.
Moving on to conscientiousness, it does seem that in some contexts conscientiousness predicts higher status attainment. This is the case primarily in task-focused contexts. One study found that a 1 standard deviation increase in conscientiousness is associated with a 7% wage increase relative to the average.
In work environments, people who are viewed as conscientious by their colleagues tend to have more social influence. In sports teams, conscientious people are viewed by teammates as having more prestige. These are task-oriented contexts—work and sports. But in everyday situations involving complex social dynamics and no clear goal, conscientiousness has no relationship with status. In research looking at college dorms, fraternities, and sororities, conscientious people are no more likely to attain status than anyone else. This is an older study, though. Still, it is intuitive that conscientiousness is useful for accomplishing straightforward goals like winning a game or meeting a deadline. But not so much for long-term social relationships and peer dynamics.
What about Neuroticism (Emotional Stability)? Unsurprisingly, neurotic individuals are less likely to attain status. There is a small correlation between emotional stability and income, suggesting that neurotic individuals earn slightly less than average.
When people are asked about their coworkers’ level of influence in the company, neurotic coworkers tend to be perceived as less influential. Neuroticism is associated with lower occupational prestige.
Interestingly, neuroticism is more damaging to men’s status, relative to women. People seem to expect men to be emotionally stable and penalize them when they are not. Neurotic men, but not neurotic women, are less likely to be nominated as leaders, and tend to be perceived as having lower status in college dorms. Emotional stability seems to be a small but consistent predictor of status attainment.
The link between openness and status is tenuous. Some evidence suggests a small correlation between openness and income. But there’s no link between openness and peer-rated influence. However, one study found that openness at age 21 predicted higher occupational prestige at age 52. It’s possible that, similar to conscientiousness, openness is useful in some contexts more than others. For creative domains, openness and its associated qualities of creativity and divergent thinking might be helpful.
So that wraps up our exploration of status and the Big Five.
The strongest personality predictors of status are extraversion, conscientiousness, and disagreeableness, with weaker effects for the remaining traits.
Self-monitoring is an interesting trait. People who are high on self-monitoring are sensitive to others and use the examples of other individuals to guide their own behavior. Humans in general are high-fidelity imitators, and self-monitors are especially good at this.
Self-monitoring indeed correlates with status. In one study, people high on this trait were perceived as having greater influence by their peers in their MBA projects teams, and they attain higher status in their MBA cohorts.
Other studies have found that high self-monitors are more likely to be promoted. People who are observant and responsive to others are more likely to be held in higher regard.
Here’s an image from Catch Me If You Can, a movie based on a true story. The main character successfully impersonates a doctor, a lawyer, and an airline pilot. Throughout the movie, you see him carefully observing his surroundings to learn how to behave in each occupational context.
This guy, Frank Abagnale (portrayed by DiCaprio—I think this is the last movie of his I use as an example, but maybe not), would almost certainly score highly on self-monitoring.
Now we’ll get into the Dark Triad personality traits. The Dark Triad is a constellation of three different factors—narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.
Let’s delve into each of these traits.
There are actually two different types of narcissism: Grandiose and vulnerable.
Both of them share some core features: Grandiose and vulnerable narcissists are self-centered, shallow, entitled, antagonistic, and hostile. Both believe they deserve special treatment.
But there are key differences as well.
What characterizes a grandiose narcissist? This is the type of narcissist measured in the Dark Triad scales. Researchers who study the Dark Triad are interested in grandiose as opposed to vulnerable narcissism.
Grandiosity is associated with low neuroticism, high extraversion, greater levels of energy and happiness, overconfidence, an imperviousness to insults or setbacks, and a greater willingness to self-promote, brag, and name-drop. I say grandiose narcissists are a wolf in wolf’s clothing. You can spot these guys from a mile away. I say guys, because men generally score higher on grandiose narcissism than women.
At moderate levels, some grandiosity might be advantageous, but at a certain level it can cause problems for both the individual and for those around them. You want a fighter pilot or a surgeon to be confident (as long as the confidence is based on competence and not arrogance) and have low emotional distress. But too much grandiosity might land you in prison and wreck your relationships with others.
Here are some sample items that measure grandiosity in research participants (1= strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree):
• Others’ opinions of me are of little concern to me.
• I get lots of enjoyment from entertaining others.
• Someday I believe that most people will know my name.
• Others say I brag too much, but everything I say is true.
Unsurprisingly, men tend to score higher on grandiose narcissism. I just want to highlight that all of us have a bit of these traits within us. Very few of us would select “strongly disagree” on every single item, which implies that most of us are a little bit narcissistic. A grandiose narcissist, though, is someone who would respond “strongly agree” to many of these items.
Then there’s vulnerable narcissism. Again, this facet of narcissism is not captured by the Dark Triad, but I think it’s important to understand that narcissism is complex and is not limited to just grandiosity.
Vulnerable narcissists are sometimes called “covert” or “hidden” or “shy” narcissists. They are prone to shame, humiliation, and depression. Unlike grandiose narcissists, vulnerable narcissists score highly on neuroticism and are more unhappy than average. They are prone to envy and denigrate others and their accomplishments. People who score highly on vulnerable narcissism crave status and recognition, but are often disappointed when they achieve it. They are extremely sensitive to insults and really don’t like being belittled. They are also more likely to lash out at others or seek revenge if they feel they are not respected. I call them a wolf in sheep’s clothing, because you often don’t know when you’re dealing with a vulnerable narcissist. Vulnerable narcissists are good at concealing this aspect of themselves, whereas grandiose narcissists let people know who they are up front. Interestingly, unlike with grandiosity, there are no sex differences in vulnerable narcissism.
Here are some sample items that measure vulnerable narcissism:
• I often feel as if I need compliments from others in order to be sure of myself.
• It really makes me angry when I don’t get what I deserve.
• When I realize I have failed at something, I feel humiliated.
• I often interpret the remarks of others in a personal way.
Those are the two facets of narcissism. Again, very few of us would strongly disagree with all of these items. But someone who consistently strongly agrees with these statements would exemplify a vulnerable narcissist.
Now we’ll move to psychopathy. This has been described as the “darkest” of the three Dark Triad traits. It is associated with callousness, cruelty, and a disregard for other people.
It was originally described by a psychiatrist named Hervey Cleckley as a “mask of sanity.” True psychopaths are mentally unwell, but often come across as normal. The Dark Triad isn’t intended to measure clinical levels of psychopathy or narcissism, but people who score very highly on the Dark Triad scales are people who would likely have severe challenges in their personal lives.
People who are high in Dark Triad psychopathy are habitual social comparers. People who are psychopathically-oriented constantly implicitly monitor where they are on the social ladder relative to others. They have what’s called shallow or blunted affect; a poverty of emotion, with a reduced ability to feel guilt or remorse. They can fake emotions. Some psychopaths report that they watch movies and TV shows and when they see characters make expressions associated with certain emotions, they will then practice those emotions in the mirror in order to convince others that they are capable of feeling.
Low impulse control is another hallmark of psychopathy. They have difficulty restraining their desires. Around 20-30% of prison inmates are psychopaths.
People high on psychopathy are also interested in creating an attractive appearance. Some studies indicate that people high on the Dark Triad traits are rated as more attractive. But when researchers asked people to wear the same clothes, remove makeup, adopt a neutral facial expression, and so on, they found that people high on the Dark Triad traits were no more attractive than anyone else. It seems that the reason they are rated as attractive is that they invest more time in their appearance than most other people.
Other studies have found that people judge individuals who are high on psychopathy to be more sincere in their emotional expressions than average. This might be because they spend a lot of time honing this ability in order to get along with or exploit other people.
Here are some sample items that measure Dark Triad psychopathy:
• I like to pick on losers.
• People who mess with me always regret it.
• I sometimes get into dangerous situations.
• I like to get revenge on authorities.
The third trait of the Dark Triad is Machiavellianism. It is marked by strategic exploitation and duplicity. People high on this trait tend to be cynical and suspicious of others’ motives. They are highly self-interested and believe others are as well. When they are the recipient of an act of kindness, their immediate impulse is to respond with intense analysis, trying to figure out why such a kind thing has happened to them, and whether the other person has a hidden motive. This is likely because they themselves have hidden agendas, and believe others around them do as well.
A recent study found that Machiavellians are likely to cancel plans at the last minute if something better comes along.
Similar to psychopaths, Machiavellians have shallow affect and a low ability to experience joy. Unlike people high on grandiose narcissism (who are happier than average), Machiavellians are prone to experiencing depression and anxiety, and often only feel positive emotion when they have successfully duped or taken advantage of another person.
Compared with psychopathy, people high on Machiavellianism tend to have higher impulse control. Machiavellians deploy anger and take risks strategically in the service of longer-term goals.
Here are some sample items that measure Machiavellianism:
• I like to use clever manipulation to get my way.
• It’s wise to keep track of information that you can use against people later.
• You should wait for the right time to get back at people.
• It’s not wise to tell your secrets.
Logan Roy from HBO’s Succession would score very highly on trait Machiavellianism, as would his three youngest children. Logan sometimes asks people, “What’s your angle?” This character thinks others have a hidden agenda, and thinks poorly of them if they don’t.
So we’ve described the three Dark Triad traits. Let’s investigate whether any of them predict status pursuit and status attainment.
What do you think, do people high on these traits desire lots of status? Are they more likely to pursue it, and to attain it?
Among the Big Five personality traits, the Dark Triad is most highly correlated with disagreeableness. That is, agreeable people tend to score low on these traits, and disagreeable people are more likely to score highly.
The relationship between disagreeableness and the Dark Triad is moderate to large in terms of effect size, hovering around r = .3 to .4. We’re not getting into statistics in these lectures, but it’s worth noting that those are fairly large correlation coefficients in personality psychology research.
Predictably, narcissists assign great value to acquiring fame, wealth, and leadership positions. Narcissism does predict a small boost in income as well. However, the link between narcissism and status attainment is inconsistent. High-status people do tend to be more narcissistic than average; but narcissistic individuals are not more likely to have high status.
Think of it like height and basketball. Generally, professional basketball players are tall, height is a necessity to play in the NBA. However, not all tall people are professional basketball players.
Similarly, high status people are more narcissistically oriented than average, and a bit of narcissism is likely necessary to be motivated to pursue and attain status. However, not all narcissists achieve prominence and fame and fortune.
Why doesn’t narcissism predict status? There’s an idea called the chocolate cake model of narcissism, discussed by the personality psychologist W. Keith Campbell in his book The New Science of Narcissism. Chocolate cake looks good, and for the first few bites it tastes great. But if you eat too much, it makes you sick.
Narcissism is similar. Narcissists tend to make great first impressions. They look good (remember, they spend a lot of time on their appearance) and they enjoy social attention, and are often good conversationalists, so long as the topic is themselves. But after a while, people catch on, and narcissists have to move on. They make good first impressions, but it doesn’t last.
Then there’s psychopathy. Psychopathically oriented people are more impulsive and more inclined to take risks in order to attain status.
Here’s a sample item from the status-driven risk-taking scale: “I would enjoy being a famous and powerful person, even if it meant a high risk of assassination.”
People who score highly on Dark Triad psychopathy are much more likely to answer yes to this question. Among the three Dark Triad traits, psychopathy is by far the strongest predictor of status-driven risk-taking.
However, though they have the drive to attain status, people high on this trait are not more likely to attain it. Psychopathy has no statistical relationship with either income or occupational prestige. This might be because psychopathic people tend to be impulsive, which is not necessarily a good trait to have when seeking prominence.
However, my speculation is that although most psychopaths do not attain high status, high-status people are more likely to score highly on this trait.
Numbers vary depending on the scale used and the specific sample tested, but broadly, in the general population, about 2 percent of adults can be classified as psychopaths.
In prisons, unsurprisingly, the number is around 20 to 30 percent. Interestingly, though, for many white collar occupations, such as business executives and people who work in advertising, the number is about 13 percent. This is smaller than for prisons, but also far higher than the general population. Robert Hare, the world’s foremost expert on psychopathy, has characterized these types as organizational psychopaths, or corporate psychopaths. They likely have higher impulsive control than is typical for psychopathy, but still possess the hallmarks of callousness, cynicism, exploitative behavior, and so on.
What’s also interesting is that about 8 percent of college students are psychopaths. Some of this might be due to age. Young people score higher on Dark Triad traits. A clinical psychologist once told me that he was taught during his training not to use adult psychopathy scales on teenage boys. The reason was that a false positive was likely to result. Anyway, my sense is that high-pressure academic environments in which there is a lot of status to be obtained might attract people who are psychopathically oriented. Again, think of the basketball analogy.
Finally, there’s Machiavellianism. This trait predicts a slight increase in income and leadership. However, it has been proposed that intelligence is what’s called a moderator for the effectiveness of this trait. Basically, for people high in intelligence, Machiavellianism is linked to higher earnings. But for people with low intelligence, Machiavellianism is actually linked to lower earnings. It’s possible, then, that smart people know how and when to employ strategic duplicity and manipulative tactics to their advantage. Less adept people might try to use such strategies and fumble, or get caught out, and thus spoil their ambitions.
This is likely the case for the other Dark Triad traits as well. High intelligence amplifies their effectiveness, and low intelligence causes these traits to backfire. This is speculation, but I think there’s a similar pattern for autism as well. Autism is actually, on average, correlated with lower intelligence. But for highly intelligent people, some of the traits associated with this condition might be beneficial for certain kinds of tasks.
Overall, I think there is an availability bias issue here for the Dark Triad and success. If I ask you, are exploitative and duplicitous people more likely to achieve fame and fortune? You’ll ask yourself, “Can I think of a rich and famous person who is exploitative and duplicitous? Yes!” You might not consider all the people who have such traits who are not rich and famous. Many of these people are in prison or live on the margins of society, having burned so many bridges in their social relationships with their manipulative or abusive behavior.
Most people who have these traits do not achieve fame and fortune.
The overall picture is that psychopathy is likely detrimental for status attainment. Machiavellianism appears to be beneficial for those with higher intelligence. Grandiose narcissism is likely helpful in small amounts. These are the general findings. Narcissism has the most consistent link with status. Unlike with psychopaths and Machiavellians, narcissists enjoy being admired. They are generally prestige-oriented, as opposed to dominance-oriented. They don’t typically get a thrill from duping or hurting others.
In sum, the link between Dark Triad traits and status is tenuous. People generally despise bullies, manipulation, and cruelty. Remember, we are self-domesticated apes who are hyper-sensitive to people who exert unwanted dominance.
Some researchers are now investigating at a fourth associated trait and have proposed a “Dark Tetrad” model. The proposed fourth trait is sadism, along with the aforementioned three traits we’ve been discussing. I’m unaware of any research looking specifically at the link between sadism and status-seeking, but figured I’d mention this for the sake of completeness.
One researcher named Delroy Paulhus has described the difficulties of testing sadism in experimental settings. One method he and his colleagues used: studies in which participants were led to believe they could kill insects using a machine.
The insects had cute names like “Muffin” and “Tootsie.” Participants had the option to place the insects onto the machine and press down to kill them. The machine made a loud “grinding sound” similar to coffee beans. Some participants really enjoyed the task, crunching lots of insects, and asking the experimenters if they had any more they could kill. These people scored highly on sadism. Other participants were horrified by the task and asked to leave. These individuals scored low on sadism. By the way, in reality, the machine was rigged so that no bugs were actually harmed in the study.
Let’s briefly discuss age and status. It’s not exactly a surprising finding that older people tend to have higher status than the young. Older people have had more time to gain skills, education, and promotions. Interestingly, interest in status is higher when people are young. Older people are already established, and, generally, their hunger for prominence is not as intense.
The reason for the decline in interest in status is associated with predictable changes in personality across the lifespan. People become more agreeable, more conscientious, and less neurotic as they grow older. They become more interested in getting along rather than getting ahead.
This is unrelated to status but still interesting — openness also tends to decline with age. Older people don’t have as strong an interest in novelty.
The explore/exploit framework helps to understand this. The idea is that when you are young, it makes sense to explore the world around you to investigate what you want and what you enjoy. This is why, for example, infants put every object they see into their mouths. They have no idea what the thing is, so they want to know if its food and if it tastes good. Each object they put in their mouth is like pulling the lever on a slot machine; they’re hoping to hit the jackpot. As they grow older, children tend to become pickier eaters, only eating what they know they’ll enjoy.
Adults are like this too. When young, it makes sense to try new jobs, new hobbies, make new friends, maybe date different people, to see what you want in life. Later, people switch to exploit. This doesn’t mean in the sense of trying to take advantage of someone. Rather, exploit in this sense means to do the things you know you’ll enjoy doing.
The explore/exploit framework appears to be based on how much time you have left. Imagine learning you have a full century of life ahead of you. One hundred years. In this case, it would make sense to try new restaurants, live in different countries, hang out with different people, and so on.
Now imagine you learn you have only a week left to live. Would you be trying exotic foods and renting airbnb’s in far-flung locales, hanging out with new people in different social circles, and trying to sleep with a stranger? Probably not. You’d probably want to eat the foods you know you’ll enjoy, live in a place where you know you’ll be comfortable, and spend time with people you love and care about.
This is why, for instance, elderly people enjoy spending time with family so much, while young people prefer hanging with friends and unfamiliar people. Old people don’t have as much time left; young people have their whole lives ahead of them. Young adults often forget that their elderly loved ones are not going to be around as long as they themselves are. This isn’t an advice giving forum—I’m here to lecture but I’m not here to lecture you. But one piece of advice I’d give is to spend a little more time than you’d prefer around elderly family and friends. Most people won’t regret spending too much time with elderly relatives, but you’ll likely regret spending too little.
Dark Triad traits tend to decline with age. As we grow older, we become more agreeable. Relatedly, the ability to formulate believable lies peaks between the ages of 18 and 29. There’s also a concept in criminology known as the “age-crime curve.” What this means is that the likelihood of an individual committing a crime peaks at around age 18 or 19, especially for violent crimes, and especially for young males. It seems to be true regardless of time and place. This is true in Scandinavian countries, Japan, and in rich zip codes in the U.S. Young people in any geographic locale, particularly young males, are the most likely to be criminally inclined.
Wherever you are, if you locked all teenage males up and released them at age 30, the vast majority of crime would simply dissipate.
I’ll tell you guys a personal story. I mentioned, I think, that I enlisted in the military right out of high school when I was 17. Before that point, I was doing drugs, I was drinking until I was blackout drunk and then racing on the freeway with my friends, I was vandalizing buildings and shooting paintball guns at pedestrians from my friends’ car. Then I join the military, and it changed my life.
People ask how the military helped me. And the usual answers definitely apply here. Leadership, discipline, camaraderie, structure, all those things helped me to shed my bad habits.
But there’s something I never hear anyone else talk about when they discuss the benefits of the military: time. In a very real way, the military basically allowed me to mature while not allowing me to do something self-destructive.
At least during boot camp and the first few months of training, every aspect of your life is tightly controlled. You have room inspections, uniform inspections, regular and random drug tests, and so on. The rules are made very clear up front: If you’re late for work or if you fail a drug test, you can be court martialed and wind up in prison. So you basically have all your choices stripped from you, you do exactly what your told and that’s it.
That was the environment I was in. One thing I learned is that so much of success depends not on what you do, but on what you don’t do. And it occurred to me that even if you don’t learn anything from a military enlistment, it’s still four or six years you spend not wrecking your life. By the time a guy gets out in his early twenties, he’s seldom as stupid and impulsive as he was at age 17 or 18. Your frontal lobes have developed a bit more, you’re a little more mature and self-possessed and reflective, and now you can direct your attention to something other than impulsive and fleeting pleasures.
Okay, so our Dark Triad scores are highest when we’re young. Why is that the case?
As mentioned, a bit of the Dark Triad might be necessary to achieve some degree of success. When you’re young, you don’t have much in the way of material resources or success or status. So a bit of guile and strategy and inveigling is probably useful to obtain friends, advance in your community, and attract romantic partners. Just a bit, though. Very high Dark Triad scores will lead you to wind up dead or imprisoned.
Some clinical researchers have suggested that there is a kind of “burnout” effect for Dark Triad traits. Essentially, when you are young and healthy and strong, you can afford to take risks. You can afford to be confrontational, aggressive, and hostile. But as you age and lose muscle mass and bone density and all the other associated hallmarks of growing old, it is maladaptive to engage in activities that might put yourself in danger. It becomes more dangerous not only to partake in physical risks like bungee jumping or extreme sports, but also social risks like betraying someone. And so these traits burn out and decline as we reach an age where they are more likely to hurt rather than help us.
We’ve been talking about the unpleasant aspects of human nature. We’ll transition now to the more positive side.
Recently, the psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman and his colleagues have developed a psychological concept called the “Light Triad.” This is a constellation of three traits:
Humanism: Appreciation for the successes and creations of others
Kantianism: Tendency toward behaving with integrity and honesty rather than deceit and charm
Faith in Humanity: Believing people are generally good and worthy of trust
The Light Triad isn’t the opposite of the Dark Triad. They are inversely correlated, but not perfectly. If you get top scores on the Dark Triad scale, that doesn’t mean you’d score zero on the Light Triad. And if you max out the Light Triad scale, that doesn’t mean you’d score zero on the Dark Triad.
People generally have a bit of both the Dark and the Light triad within them.
People high on the Light Triad are motivated more by affiliation and intimacy than by power and status. They focus more on getting along rather than getting ahead. Interestingly, both the Dark and the Light Triad correlate with high self-esteem. But the Light Triad has a much stronger link with self-esteem (r = .27) than the Dark Triad (r = .18).
Relative to being self-obsessed and exploitative, being kind and generous is a stronger predictor of high self-esteem.
People high on the Dark Triad are not more likely to be self-aware, whereas people high on the Light Triad score higher on self-awareness. It’s possible that Dark Triad types would prefer not to look too deeply into themselves and their motives because they wouldn’t like what they’d find. Light Triad types are more willing to look inward, unafraid of learning about what truly motivates them.
Also interesting is that both the Dark and Light Triad are equally strong predictors of higher income. The effect for both is small, but it is intriguing that there appear to be two different paths here to higher earnings. Yet only the Light Triad is associated with greater self-esteem and self-awareness.
I’ll close with a quote by Robert Greene. He’s the author of The 48 Laws of Power, among other books, that delve into some of the ideas we’ve discussed, from more of a historical and literary perspective.
Greene writes:
“Those who love this Machiavellian part of our nature and revel in it...can get pretty far, but they are eventually tripped up...They don't understand there is a whole other side to the game, which requires empathy and cooperation.”
Psychology research supports this. A bit of cunning and guile can help you, but ultimately if you want to attain status (especially prestige) you have to build relationships, win trust, and cooperate with others.
I used to love human psychological classification models as they would help me to see and understand individual human behavior difference. It helped me in my corporate management role which started when I was 24. I still believe in the benefits of classification for many purposes, but my perspective has shifted a bit because of the contradiction in another belief that I have... that all of us can develop to overcome negative traits... and conversely the use of categorization models tends to deliver the message that traits are sticky and baked-in.
This latter belief is terribly dangerous, IMO, in this period of identity politics where society is being scolded by the controlling ruling and professional class for passing any judgement on people for their behavior unless they are white males. I like to see the world as needing to deliver the message "you are acting terrible and you need to clean up your act or else be cast from the hierarchy... and I really don't give a flying fk what your personality markers or racial, gender or sexual-orientation attributes are."
N.S. Lyons wrote what I consider to be a profound crucible piece within the current topic of "what the hell is happening to society?" https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-change-merchants
N.S. makes the fascinating point that we have basically made the mistake of over-educating the population. The people are trained information manipulators that require change to feed their career and status opportunity market. So they have figured out how to cause change. The resulting chaos and the negative impacts of that chaos is secondary to their pursuit of interest to farm the career opportunity from the change. Rob covers this question... do status needy stay in school longer, or does the campus experience cause greater desire for status attainment? It is probably both... but the latter is a problem. It looks to me like there is a rube goldberg machine that delivers careers and status, but with a constantly filling supply of marbles filling up and overflowing the starting hopper. This bunch of marbles has collaborated to force tectonic change in society and the economy... on a global scale... and in effect reworking the machine to increase the speed and opportunity to attain higher status and wealth.
They are destructive in their uncontrolled pursuit of self interest. It seems to me that source of the problem is that our industry of higher learning is too big and we should stop with the student loans for victim studies degrees, and focus more on helping to fund trade schools and military service.
One last point I think that also connects to my theory that people can develop beyond their bad behaviors. I watched a program on the baseball entertainment experience in South Korea. People would leave their mobile phone at their seat when they took a bathroom break. Nobody would steal it. Related to this we have a breakdown in discipline that seems to be connected to changes in our society to be more female dominated. Joseph Campbell noted that successful cultures and tribes would move people though a three step development process he called "mothers-child, father's-child, adult". What appears to be in short supply for many people we can identify as behaving badly is the "father's-child" part. Rob got his in the military. But it used to be delivered by the strong father in the family relationship. Young children need unconditional love and nurturing. But before they launch into adults, they need discipline and to learn the lessons of accountability and responsibility. They need to get the dark traits scrubbed from their mind and replaced with thinking and behavior consistent with being a good human. Rob points out that young people tend to have these dark traits, but that over-time they tend to get replaced and resolved. I think young people today are holding them longer.
There is a lot of work to do for retooling the system to make people better, but I think the first thing we can do is to reject any notion that people are fixed entities in personality and identity... basically excusing their bad behavior as victims. I see everyone as being able to develop better qualities.
Great article as always! Although I do wonder if one of the aspects of the light triad, that of believing in the inherent goodness of others, isn’t a distinct disadvantage. In contrast, finding joy in the accomplishments of others enlarges the world because life is no longer a zero sum game.