What do you think?
Rate this book
Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us
A look at what power is, who gets it, and what happens when they do, based on over 500 interviews with those who (temporarily, at least) have had the upper hand—from the creator of the Power Corrupts podcast and Washington Post columnist Brian Klaas.
Does power corrupt, or are corrupt people drawn to power? Are tyrants made or born? Are entrepreneurs who embezzle and cops who kill the result of poorly designed systems or are they just bad people? If you were suddenly thrust into a position of power, would you be able to resist the temptation to line your pockets or seek revenge against your enemies?
To answer these questions, Corruptible draws on over 500 interviews with some of the world’s top leaders—from the noblest to the dirtiest—including presidents and philanthropists as well as rebels, cultists, and dictators. Some of the fascinating insights include: how facial appearance determines who we pick as leaders, why narcissists make more money, why some people don’t want power at all and others are drawn to it out of a psychopathic impulse, and why being the “beta” (second in command) may actually be the optimal place for health and well-being.
Corruptible also features a wealth of counterintuitive examples from history and social science: you’ll meet the worst bioterrorist in American history, hit the slopes with a ski instructor who once ruled Iraq, and learn why the inability of chimpanzees to play baseball is central to the development of human hierarchies.
Does power corrupt, or are corrupt people drawn to power? Are tyrants made or born? Are entrepreneurs who embezzle and cops who kill the result of poorly designed systems or are they just bad people? If you were suddenly thrust into a position of power, would you be able to resist the temptation to line your pockets or seek revenge against your enemies?
To answer these questions, Corruptible draws on over 500 interviews with some of the world’s top leaders—from the noblest to the dirtiest—including presidents and philanthropists as well as rebels, cultists, and dictators. Some of the fascinating insights include: how facial appearance determines who we pick as leaders, why narcissists make more money, why some people don’t want power at all and others are drawn to it out of a psychopathic impulse, and why being the “beta” (second in command) may actually be the optimal place for health and well-being.
Corruptible also features a wealth of counterintuitive examples from history and social science: you’ll meet the worst bioterrorist in American history, hit the slopes with a ski instructor who once ruled Iraq, and learn why the inability of chimpanzees to play baseball is central to the development of human hierarchies.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published November 9, 2021
520 people are currently reading
10665 people want to read
About the author
Brian Klaas
8 books212 followersBrian Paul Klaas is an American political scientist, a contributing writer at The Atlantic, and an associate professor in global politics at University College London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 318 reviews
September 27, 2021
Why is it politicians are so corrupt? Why do they, and judges, and civil servants look on public service as the path to power and riches rather than service? Brian Klaas has written Corruptible, an exhaustive analysis of how we end up with these people in charge and what can be done to prevent it. It’s an entertaining adventure that spans the globe and history. It’s not pretty.
It seems those who seek power are in fact psychopaths. Give them just a little power and they manipulate everyone and everything to accumulate more. They might be open about it, like dictators, or secretive, posing as honest, helpful and humble achievers. And everything in between. With numerous remarkable examples and bizarre and shocking stories, Klaas shows that good intentioned people can become monsters when they are promoted to be in charge. Of anything, from whole empires to the maintenance departments of a high school.
Everything then revolves around them; it becomes all about their prestige, their power, their glory, their wealth. Nothing else in the world comes close. They suck out the wealth, suck out the goodwill and suck out anything that smacks of equality. We see it everywhere. Klaas examines several cases where lives went gradually, or even suddenly, criminally wrong.
He says what we really need are the people who don’t want to run for office, who don’t want the responsibility. They’ll likely be more honest and less power mad in office. Using examples such as a condo board, he shows that those kind of rational people steer clear. Instead, the board gets eager candidates who can’t wait to rule over everyone else in the development, instituting strict (if not irrational) rules, fining transgressors and seeking revenge over every complainer or opponent, or someone who just wants to be left alone.
This model scales to the national level, where self-selecting candidates are precisely the people we should not be voting for. It’s why voters stay away from polls. It’s why they think the field of candidates seems to be of lower quality every election. It’s how dictators come to power and how countries get into trouble. It’s the paradox of power: “Those who shouldn’t be in power are more likely to seek it,” he says.
Klaas describes unending psychology studies that demonstrate the defects in character that lead to power grabs. He also toured the world, meeting with former dictators, murderers and thieves, who today, out of power, seem like perfectly lovely people. While In power, they had no hesitancy say, sending in the troops to crack skulls, or to literally poison opponents themselves. They stole public funds by the billions. They wore their newfound wealth and power arrogantly.
With all the studies constantly being done, all kinds of profiles and generalizations are available. Corruptible people interrupt more, they stereotype other people more, they use less moral reasoning, and are more judgmental of behaviors in others than themselves. They even drive through pedestrian zones faster. Seriously. A study showed that people driving expensive power cars would not stop for pedestrians in crosswalks as much as drivers in just average cars. There’s a study for everything.
In the USA, the police are a major outlet for corrupting power. Encouraged by government, military veterans sign up by the thousands, ready, willing and able to shoot or smash anyone they don’t particularly like, in the guise of a police officer. It happens over a thousand times a year.
Worse, the federal government got the brilliant idea of donating surplus military equipment to local police forces, pretty much forcing them to create SWAT teams and commando units to make use of it. It has the same result: those who want to be cops are precisely the people who should never be hired into the force. Those who wouldn’t go near it are the ones who should be in it. “If you’re a bully, a bigot, or a sexual predator, policing is a really attractive career choice,” according to Helen King of the Metropolitan Police, London. Police are renown for domestic violence in their own families, abuse of steroids, and lying in court, all far in excess of national averages.
It takes a different mindset to correct. This is the experience of New Zealand. Their police recruitment advertising emphasizes community relations and co-operation, not armed bodybuilders storming a home. The result is all but zero police murders, a better reputation, and all kinds of community minded men and women choosing police work. In selecting recruits, working cops take them out on patrol and report back on their attitudes. They say things like Wait… they’re coming in for the wrong reason. And they’re turned down.
The result is a complete rebalancing of the force. Applications are up 24% as a broader spectrum of candidates feels it a worthwhile career. A quarter are now women, compared to ten percent in the USA, where police forces tend to be 30% whiter than their communities. Police in New Zealand account for 0.8 deaths of civilians per year; in the USA, it is well over 1100. In New Zealand, police are the community, not enforcers.
Compare this to Stebbins, a small town in Alaska, Klaas says, where almost all the cops are convicted felons, because they’re the only ones who apply. The more there are of them, the fewer other people want to work there. This creates vacancies where the only ones to apply….
So there are things to be tried. Klaas is not short of ideas, though many are easy to shoot down. And he misses some obvious ones, like term limits. If, as in ancient Greece, political offices were limited to a single term, lobbying would shrivel, and the comfort and security of a lifelong career would never be a factor. Cronyism would not work. He does however, recommend an end to long partnerships among the police, where buddies stick up for each other, look the other way, and co-operate in illegal activities that cops think they can get away with, what with all their insider information and connections in the force.
He cites Kevin Dutton, who listed the top ten careers for psychopaths: CEOs, lawyers, TV/radio personalities, salespeople, surgeons, journalists, police, clergy, chefs and civil servants. Politicians don’t make list only because their numbers are so limited. But in general, it’s everywhere.
I did have one issue with Corruptible. Klaas is a definitive writer. He is very clear and very certain in his claims. So when he’s wrong, he can be embarrassingly firm. He cites the decades unthinking consensus among anthropologists and psychologists that dominance comes from large numbers of people living together. “Put enough people together, and hierarchy and dominance always emerge (His emphasis). It’s an ironclad rule of history…Our choice is either to live in tiny co-operative groups or embrace hierarchy. “ As if Klaas is the expert. But this has been thoroughly debunked by David Graeber and David Wengrow in The Dawn of Everything. Major cities existed side by side with villages and small bands; they were not the result of a progression from small to large. Major cities existed without top-down administration, all over the world. People used to be co-operative, helpful and supportive in huge communities. Homelessness did not exist. Cities built communal housing for all. Inequality came later, with institutions, like royalty and religion. The opportunities for corruption were minimal, unlike today when they are ubiquitous. They say there is simply no basis for claims like Klaas’. For Klaas to cite civilization itself as a cause of corruption is unsupportable. Just skip chapter two; it’s wrong.
So power does corrupt. Situations corrupt people. Positions corrupt people. Some personalities are prone to corruption. Corruptible people self select when all it takes is an election or a promotion. And once inside the bubble, few can see what monsters they have become. They’re too busy demanding absolute loyalty. Finally, Klaas says that few studies suggest that power makes people more virtuous. Power is a drug, it seems. If you get a taste, it can overwhelm you – and take down the whole country if they let you keep at it.
David Wineberg
If you liked this review, I invite you to read my book The Straight Dope. It’s an essay collection based on my first thousand reviews and what I learned. Right now it’s FREE for Prime members, otherwise — cheap! Reputed to be fascinating and a superfast read. https://www.amazon.com/Straight-Dope-...
It seems those who seek power are in fact psychopaths. Give them just a little power and they manipulate everyone and everything to accumulate more. They might be open about it, like dictators, or secretive, posing as honest, helpful and humble achievers. And everything in between. With numerous remarkable examples and bizarre and shocking stories, Klaas shows that good intentioned people can become monsters when they are promoted to be in charge. Of anything, from whole empires to the maintenance departments of a high school.
Everything then revolves around them; it becomes all about their prestige, their power, their glory, their wealth. Nothing else in the world comes close. They suck out the wealth, suck out the goodwill and suck out anything that smacks of equality. We see it everywhere. Klaas examines several cases where lives went gradually, or even suddenly, criminally wrong.
He says what we really need are the people who don’t want to run for office, who don’t want the responsibility. They’ll likely be more honest and less power mad in office. Using examples such as a condo board, he shows that those kind of rational people steer clear. Instead, the board gets eager candidates who can’t wait to rule over everyone else in the development, instituting strict (if not irrational) rules, fining transgressors and seeking revenge over every complainer or opponent, or someone who just wants to be left alone.
This model scales to the national level, where self-selecting candidates are precisely the people we should not be voting for. It’s why voters stay away from polls. It’s why they think the field of candidates seems to be of lower quality every election. It’s how dictators come to power and how countries get into trouble. It’s the paradox of power: “Those who shouldn’t be in power are more likely to seek it,” he says.
Klaas describes unending psychology studies that demonstrate the defects in character that lead to power grabs. He also toured the world, meeting with former dictators, murderers and thieves, who today, out of power, seem like perfectly lovely people. While In power, they had no hesitancy say, sending in the troops to crack skulls, or to literally poison opponents themselves. They stole public funds by the billions. They wore their newfound wealth and power arrogantly.
With all the studies constantly being done, all kinds of profiles and generalizations are available. Corruptible people interrupt more, they stereotype other people more, they use less moral reasoning, and are more judgmental of behaviors in others than themselves. They even drive through pedestrian zones faster. Seriously. A study showed that people driving expensive power cars would not stop for pedestrians in crosswalks as much as drivers in just average cars. There’s a study for everything.
In the USA, the police are a major outlet for corrupting power. Encouraged by government, military veterans sign up by the thousands, ready, willing and able to shoot or smash anyone they don’t particularly like, in the guise of a police officer. It happens over a thousand times a year.
Worse, the federal government got the brilliant idea of donating surplus military equipment to local police forces, pretty much forcing them to create SWAT teams and commando units to make use of it. It has the same result: those who want to be cops are precisely the people who should never be hired into the force. Those who wouldn’t go near it are the ones who should be in it. “If you’re a bully, a bigot, or a sexual predator, policing is a really attractive career choice,” according to Helen King of the Metropolitan Police, London. Police are renown for domestic violence in their own families, abuse of steroids, and lying in court, all far in excess of national averages.
It takes a different mindset to correct. This is the experience of New Zealand. Their police recruitment advertising emphasizes community relations and co-operation, not armed bodybuilders storming a home. The result is all but zero police murders, a better reputation, and all kinds of community minded men and women choosing police work. In selecting recruits, working cops take them out on patrol and report back on their attitudes. They say things like Wait… they’re coming in for the wrong reason. And they’re turned down.
The result is a complete rebalancing of the force. Applications are up 24% as a broader spectrum of candidates feels it a worthwhile career. A quarter are now women, compared to ten percent in the USA, where police forces tend to be 30% whiter than their communities. Police in New Zealand account for 0.8 deaths of civilians per year; in the USA, it is well over 1100. In New Zealand, police are the community, not enforcers.
Compare this to Stebbins, a small town in Alaska, Klaas says, where almost all the cops are convicted felons, because they’re the only ones who apply. The more there are of them, the fewer other people want to work there. This creates vacancies where the only ones to apply….
So there are things to be tried. Klaas is not short of ideas, though many are easy to shoot down. And he misses some obvious ones, like term limits. If, as in ancient Greece, political offices were limited to a single term, lobbying would shrivel, and the comfort and security of a lifelong career would never be a factor. Cronyism would not work. He does however, recommend an end to long partnerships among the police, where buddies stick up for each other, look the other way, and co-operate in illegal activities that cops think they can get away with, what with all their insider information and connections in the force.
He cites Kevin Dutton, who listed the top ten careers for psychopaths: CEOs, lawyers, TV/radio personalities, salespeople, surgeons, journalists, police, clergy, chefs and civil servants. Politicians don’t make list only because their numbers are so limited. But in general, it’s everywhere.
I did have one issue with Corruptible. Klaas is a definitive writer. He is very clear and very certain in his claims. So when he’s wrong, he can be embarrassingly firm. He cites the decades unthinking consensus among anthropologists and psychologists that dominance comes from large numbers of people living together. “Put enough people together, and hierarchy and dominance always emerge (His emphasis). It’s an ironclad rule of history…Our choice is either to live in tiny co-operative groups or embrace hierarchy. “ As if Klaas is the expert. But this has been thoroughly debunked by David Graeber and David Wengrow in The Dawn of Everything. Major cities existed side by side with villages and small bands; they were not the result of a progression from small to large. Major cities existed without top-down administration, all over the world. People used to be co-operative, helpful and supportive in huge communities. Homelessness did not exist. Cities built communal housing for all. Inequality came later, with institutions, like royalty and religion. The opportunities for corruption were minimal, unlike today when they are ubiquitous. They say there is simply no basis for claims like Klaas’. For Klaas to cite civilization itself as a cause of corruption is unsupportable. Just skip chapter two; it’s wrong.
So power does corrupt. Situations corrupt people. Positions corrupt people. Some personalities are prone to corruption. Corruptible people self select when all it takes is an election or a promotion. And once inside the bubble, few can see what monsters they have become. They’re too busy demanding absolute loyalty. Finally, Klaas says that few studies suggest that power makes people more virtuous. Power is a drug, it seems. If you get a taste, it can overwhelm you – and take down the whole country if they let you keep at it.
David Wineberg
If you liked this review, I invite you to read my book The Straight Dope. It’s an essay collection based on my first thousand reviews and what I learned. Right now it’s FREE for Prime members, otherwise — cheap! Reputed to be fascinating and a superfast read. https://www.amazon.com/Straight-Dope-...
January 5, 2022
It’s a familiar story: A corrupt leader rises to power, is often willingly allowed to do so, and proceeds to leave a trail of destruction in his wake (it’s usually, but not always, a male). We see this time and time again throughout history and across the globe. But we never seem to learn. How can we account for this?
The conventional answer is to blame power itself, as in the proverbial saying “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But as political scientist Brian Klaas explains in his latest book, Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us, things are not so simple. While power can indeed corrupt, more often bad people are drawn to positions of power in the first place, and pursue these positions within systems that actually encourage bad behavior. To ensure that the right people are placed in power, we have to do more than focus only on individuals; we need to fix the underlying systems that allow them to thrive. As Klass wrote:
“What if power doesn’t make us better or worse? What if power just attracts certain kinds of people—and those are precisely the ones who shouldn’t be in charge? Maybe those who most want power are the least suited to hold it. Perhaps those who crave power are corruptible.”
The conventional (but probably oversimplified) idea that power corrupts is best exemplified in the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971. In this experiment, volunteers were placed inside of a simulated prison environment. One group of volunteers was assigned to become prisoners while the other group was assigned as guards. What the researchers discovered was that those assigned as guards, once given power, began to mistreat the prisoners, so much so that the experiment was stopped before its planned two-week duration.
This seems to show that power does in fact corrupt, and that this could happen to anyone. But as Klaas points out, the interpretation of this experiment is not as straightforward as you might think.
First, not all the guards became abusive, so if power does corrupt, it clearly affects people differently. Second, the volunteers may have been attempting to act out their roles in a certain way, thinking that’s what the researchers were looking for. In fact, the latest research into this experiment calls into question whether or not the volunteers were actually coached to act aggressively.
And finally, and most crucially, new research has revealed that the way you advertise the study impacts the type of people who volunteer. If you advertise for volunteers for “a psychological study,” you get a far different response than if you advertise for “a psychological study of prison life.” Just by adding the phrase “of prison life” to the advertisement, researchers found that more aggressive, authoritarian, and narcissistic personality types applied for the study (after conducting personality tests). As Klaas notes, ordinary people are not turned sadistic when given power; rather, sadistic individuals actively seek out positions of power.
If this is true, this is a crucial discovery. It means that bad people will always seek out positions of power, and that the only way to stop them from attaining it is to fix the systems that allow them to thrive—and to get people to stop voting for them.
Unfortunately, that last point is easier said than done. It seems that we are evolutionarily predisposed to vote for bad leaders. As Klaas explains, in our hunter-gatherer past, it made sense to select leaders based almost exclusively on physical traits. After all, you would never select the weakest member of your tribe to lead the next hunting expedition or war. In our hunter-gatherer past, then, perception mostly matched reality: the most physically gifted and aggressive individual was the one most likely to achieve the tribe's survival goals.
But, as is mainly the case, in the modern world, basing decisions strictly on our evolutionary psychology is mostly idiotic. Hunter-gatherers may have been justified in eating as many calories of sugar as they could find, for example, but if we follow this instinct in the modern world, we will almost assuredly die (from obesity-related illnesses like heart disease and diabetes). This is an example of what is called an evolutionary mismatch.
Likewise, there is absolutely no correlation between the ability to lead a modern, knowledge-based economy and how much one can bench press, but the way we vote in modern elections, we might as well replace the debates with weight lifting competitions.
We consistently vote for tall white men with masculine faces and physically fit bodies and overconfident, aggressive personalities. We especially seem to like overconfidence and aggression, but the problem with this is that, overwhelmingly, these are the precise personality traits one will find in psychopaths or narcissists. The disturbing conclusion is that, barring further considerations regarding the individual's actual qualifications, intelligence, and moral character, our instincts tell us to vote or promote psychopaths—who are themselves more likely to pursue power in the first place.
Research bears this out. In addition to political positions, psychopaths disproportionately fill corporate boardrooms and executive offices. As Klaas wrote:
“When psychopathy is sampled in society as a whole, about one in every five hundred people scores above the psychopath threshold of thirty [on a psychological test measuring psychopathy]. In the study of aspiring corporate managers, it was one in every twenty-five. Those results could be an outlier, but that study suggests that there are about twenty times more psychopaths in corporate leadership than in the general population.”
Power is not corrupting the majority of individuals; bad leaders are seeking these positions of power out as the most efficient means of controlling other people and satisfying their selfish desires.
Let’s recap the depressing situation so far: Psychopaths naturally seek out power and often get it because they have the traits that make us subconsciously want to vote for or promote them. Once they get in power, they cause massive levels of harm because the qualities that get them elected or promoted (overconfidence, aggression, ambition, greed) are the same qualities we often find in those with low levels of competence, intelligence, and moral character. On the flip side, if you’re a good, decent person with intelligence and humility, in all likelihood, you avoid positions of power altogether (with rare exceptions; think Marcus Aurelius or George Washington).
So then why do we think power corrupts, if the evidence points to the opposite conclusion? According to Klaas, four cognitive biases explain why most people think power corrupts when it doesn’t.
First, leaders placed in bad situations often have to choose between equally bad options. It’s not that leaders are always inherently corrupt, but that they have to make tough choices most of us will never have to face (like allowing a small number to die to save far more people in a war or triage situation). Second, leaders that are already bad seem to become worse, but that’s only because they are learning better strategies and tactics. The final two reasons are that bad leaders may not necessarily be worse than the average person, it’s just that they have more opportunities to commit wrongful acts and are under more scrutiny and therefore are more likely to get caught.
So while power may corrupt in some instances (Klaas covers this extensively, evening examining the physiological changes to the body from power and stress), this phenomenon is overstated; by far the greater problem is that already corrupt people seek power and we willingly give it to them. And if that’s the case, the next question is, What can be done? Klaas has some suggestions.
Klaas starts by explaining that there is no simple fix; we can’t prevent every corrupt leader from getting elected or being promoted. But by instituting a series of reforms in how we recruit, vote, and monitor leaders, we can lessen the chance that bad people achieve positions of power while limiting the harm they can do while in office—all while encouraging the best among us to pursue these positions instead.
Klaas outlines several options including better recruiting and vetting practices, randomly selecting individuals to perform oversight (sortition), rotating people through departments to prevent fraud, personalizing decisions by having leaders meet face-to-face with the people their decisions will impact, and more thorough, randomized monitoring, not of lower-level employees, but of those in positions of power.
But perhaps the greatest deterrent to bad leadership is knowledge. If we can recognize our own tendencies to vote for or promote the wrong people based on superficial assessments made with our Stone Age brains, we can consciously try to do better. We can pay more attention to someone’s actual qualifications than to their superficial charm; we can recognize that overconfidence and aggression are often red flags; and we can fix our systems so that good behavior is rewarded, and that the morally upright among us seek out positions of power instead.
The conventional answer is to blame power itself, as in the proverbial saying “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But as political scientist Brian Klaas explains in his latest book, Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us, things are not so simple. While power can indeed corrupt, more often bad people are drawn to positions of power in the first place, and pursue these positions within systems that actually encourage bad behavior. To ensure that the right people are placed in power, we have to do more than focus only on individuals; we need to fix the underlying systems that allow them to thrive. As Klass wrote:
“What if power doesn’t make us better or worse? What if power just attracts certain kinds of people—and those are precisely the ones who shouldn’t be in charge? Maybe those who most want power are the least suited to hold it. Perhaps those who crave power are corruptible.”
The conventional (but probably oversimplified) idea that power corrupts is best exemplified in the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971. In this experiment, volunteers were placed inside of a simulated prison environment. One group of volunteers was assigned to become prisoners while the other group was assigned as guards. What the researchers discovered was that those assigned as guards, once given power, began to mistreat the prisoners, so much so that the experiment was stopped before its planned two-week duration.
This seems to show that power does in fact corrupt, and that this could happen to anyone. But as Klaas points out, the interpretation of this experiment is not as straightforward as you might think.
First, not all the guards became abusive, so if power does corrupt, it clearly affects people differently. Second, the volunteers may have been attempting to act out their roles in a certain way, thinking that’s what the researchers were looking for. In fact, the latest research into this experiment calls into question whether or not the volunteers were actually coached to act aggressively.
And finally, and most crucially, new research has revealed that the way you advertise the study impacts the type of people who volunteer. If you advertise for volunteers for “a psychological study,” you get a far different response than if you advertise for “a psychological study of prison life.” Just by adding the phrase “of prison life” to the advertisement, researchers found that more aggressive, authoritarian, and narcissistic personality types applied for the study (after conducting personality tests). As Klaas notes, ordinary people are not turned sadistic when given power; rather, sadistic individuals actively seek out positions of power.
If this is true, this is a crucial discovery. It means that bad people will always seek out positions of power, and that the only way to stop them from attaining it is to fix the systems that allow them to thrive—and to get people to stop voting for them.
Unfortunately, that last point is easier said than done. It seems that we are evolutionarily predisposed to vote for bad leaders. As Klaas explains, in our hunter-gatherer past, it made sense to select leaders based almost exclusively on physical traits. After all, you would never select the weakest member of your tribe to lead the next hunting expedition or war. In our hunter-gatherer past, then, perception mostly matched reality: the most physically gifted and aggressive individual was the one most likely to achieve the tribe's survival goals.
But, as is mainly the case, in the modern world, basing decisions strictly on our evolutionary psychology is mostly idiotic. Hunter-gatherers may have been justified in eating as many calories of sugar as they could find, for example, but if we follow this instinct in the modern world, we will almost assuredly die (from obesity-related illnesses like heart disease and diabetes). This is an example of what is called an evolutionary mismatch.
Likewise, there is absolutely no correlation between the ability to lead a modern, knowledge-based economy and how much one can bench press, but the way we vote in modern elections, we might as well replace the debates with weight lifting competitions.
We consistently vote for tall white men with masculine faces and physically fit bodies and overconfident, aggressive personalities. We especially seem to like overconfidence and aggression, but the problem with this is that, overwhelmingly, these are the precise personality traits one will find in psychopaths or narcissists. The disturbing conclusion is that, barring further considerations regarding the individual's actual qualifications, intelligence, and moral character, our instincts tell us to vote or promote psychopaths—who are themselves more likely to pursue power in the first place.
Research bears this out. In addition to political positions, psychopaths disproportionately fill corporate boardrooms and executive offices. As Klaas wrote:
“When psychopathy is sampled in society as a whole, about one in every five hundred people scores above the psychopath threshold of thirty [on a psychological test measuring psychopathy]. In the study of aspiring corporate managers, it was one in every twenty-five. Those results could be an outlier, but that study suggests that there are about twenty times more psychopaths in corporate leadership than in the general population.”
Power is not corrupting the majority of individuals; bad leaders are seeking these positions of power out as the most efficient means of controlling other people and satisfying their selfish desires.
Let’s recap the depressing situation so far: Psychopaths naturally seek out power and often get it because they have the traits that make us subconsciously want to vote for or promote them. Once they get in power, they cause massive levels of harm because the qualities that get them elected or promoted (overconfidence, aggression, ambition, greed) are the same qualities we often find in those with low levels of competence, intelligence, and moral character. On the flip side, if you’re a good, decent person with intelligence and humility, in all likelihood, you avoid positions of power altogether (with rare exceptions; think Marcus Aurelius or George Washington).
So then why do we think power corrupts, if the evidence points to the opposite conclusion? According to Klaas, four cognitive biases explain why most people think power corrupts when it doesn’t.
First, leaders placed in bad situations often have to choose between equally bad options. It’s not that leaders are always inherently corrupt, but that they have to make tough choices most of us will never have to face (like allowing a small number to die to save far more people in a war or triage situation). Second, leaders that are already bad seem to become worse, but that’s only because they are learning better strategies and tactics. The final two reasons are that bad leaders may not necessarily be worse than the average person, it’s just that they have more opportunities to commit wrongful acts and are under more scrutiny and therefore are more likely to get caught.
So while power may corrupt in some instances (Klaas covers this extensively, evening examining the physiological changes to the body from power and stress), this phenomenon is overstated; by far the greater problem is that already corrupt people seek power and we willingly give it to them. And if that’s the case, the next question is, What can be done? Klaas has some suggestions.
Klaas starts by explaining that there is no simple fix; we can’t prevent every corrupt leader from getting elected or being promoted. But by instituting a series of reforms in how we recruit, vote, and monitor leaders, we can lessen the chance that bad people achieve positions of power while limiting the harm they can do while in office—all while encouraging the best among us to pursue these positions instead.
Klaas outlines several options including better recruiting and vetting practices, randomly selecting individuals to perform oversight (sortition), rotating people through departments to prevent fraud, personalizing decisions by having leaders meet face-to-face with the people their decisions will impact, and more thorough, randomized monitoring, not of lower-level employees, but of those in positions of power.
But perhaps the greatest deterrent to bad leadership is knowledge. If we can recognize our own tendencies to vote for or promote the wrong people based on superficial assessments made with our Stone Age brains, we can consciously try to do better. We can pay more attention to someone’s actual qualifications than to their superficial charm; we can recognize that overconfidence and aggression are often red flags; and we can fix our systems so that good behavior is rewarded, and that the morally upright among us seek out positions of power instead.
March 5, 2022
This is perhaps the best book I've come across on power. It is well-researched, scientific, and engaging. It covers topics on who gets power, how power affects those who wield it, and how can we select better leaders as a society. The quick answer to the last question is scrutiny and transparency. The long answer, you'll have to read for yourself.
I rarely re-read a book, but this one has so much information packed in there I feel like I need to take notes. The author eloquently combines scientific findings with interviews and weaves a story for the reader. Once I started, I could not put it down. It's very rare for non-fiction.
Definitely a must-read for those of us who care about building a just society, and that should be everyone.
I rarely re-read a book, but this one has so much information packed in there I feel like I need to take notes. The author eloquently combines scientific findings with interviews and weaves a story for the reader. Once I started, I could not put it down. It's very rare for non-fiction.
Definitely a must-read for those of us who care about building a just society, and that should be everyone.
December 21, 2024
3.0 ★
I thought this was informative, but it was also a bit boring. What you need to know from this is that the system has always been corrupted, which most of us already know.
Anyway, here are some quotes:
“Maybe power is just a magnet for bad people rather than a force that turns good people bad. In that formulation, power doesn't corrupt—it attracts.”
“A corrupt system attracted corrupt students, and an honest system attracted honest students. Perhaps it's not about power changing people, but rather about the setting. A good system can create a virtuous circle of ethical power seekers. A bad system can create a vicious cycle of people willing to lie, cheat, and steal until they reach the top. If that's the case, then our focus shouldn't be on powerful individuals—it should be on repairing our broken systems.”
▪︎ ▪︎ ▪︎
Short Synopsis
Brian Klaas then discusses whether power corrupts people or whether people are already corrupted. Or maybe it is the system we need to change.
I thought this was informative, but it was also a bit boring. What you need to know from this is that the system has always been corrupted, which most of us already know.
Anyway, here are some quotes:
“Maybe power is just a magnet for bad people rather than a force that turns good people bad. In that formulation, power doesn't corrupt—it attracts.”
“A corrupt system attracted corrupt students, and an honest system attracted honest students. Perhaps it's not about power changing people, but rather about the setting. A good system can create a virtuous circle of ethical power seekers. A bad system can create a vicious cycle of people willing to lie, cheat, and steal until they reach the top. If that's the case, then our focus shouldn't be on powerful individuals—it should be on repairing our broken systems.”
▪︎ ▪︎ ▪︎
Short Synopsis
Brian Klaas then discusses whether power corrupts people or whether people are already corrupted. Or maybe it is the system we need to change.
June 23, 2022
The system is the problem.
With highly accessible language yet presented in a scholarly way, Klaas does an impeccable job laying out why leaders are corrupt and what to do about it. He's a political scientist who has clearly studied the topic and has interviewed scores of dictators across the globe and aims to answer the question: does power corrupt or are the corrupt attracted to power?
The short answer is yes to both.
With many anecdotes and research, Klaas shows us that yes there are those with psychopathic, Machiavellian and narcissist tendencies and yes these people are attracted to positions of power and actively seek those positions. Once in place, the corrupt leverage their power into doing all the corrupt things we know these people do: consolidate the conformers, oust the dissenters, nepotism, exploitation and embezzlement.
The whole thing started when people made projectile weapons, Klaas argues. Before projectile weapons, power systems were diffusely distributed. Ranged weapons leveled the playing field placing intellect over brute force. Power hierarchy is a relatively recent human phenomenon as most prior power structures were flat. There is a trade off because flat societies have a bit of a ceiling where advancements and innovation become stagnant because every individual is doing individual things. Once ranged weapons and surplus came along with agriculture, bam, we've got power hierarchies happening and a corruption of those power systems. After the power hierarchy is set up, we have an evolutionary mismatch where our lizard brains may still believe that those with most bravado, those that are men (usually white), are still the most equipped to be leaders. This lends us to being manipulated and highly vulnerable to corrupt systems of governance.
So yes, those that are corrupt are attracted to power but Klaas reminds us that systems matter. A corrupt system will unleash the corrupt and have a further corrupting influence on those that are in power. With many examples Klaas shows us that if you make small changes within a system, you can quickly weed out corruption. Andrather than setting up systems of surveillance for those that are controlled, we should surveil those that are actually in power. We should make leaders second guess their decisions and have them never know if they are being watched.
Recruitment is the key solution. We need to attract people to powerful positions that don't actually want to be in power. These are highly likely to be incorruptible. Rather than looking at wins and losses, we should scrutinize the decision that was used before a good or bad outcome. We should focus on how good results came about just as much as bad results or we may be punitive to good leaders and reward those that are actually corrupts.
This was an excellent read and I found it eye opening and worthwhile. Highly recommend.
With highly accessible language yet presented in a scholarly way, Klaas does an impeccable job laying out why leaders are corrupt and what to do about it. He's a political scientist who has clearly studied the topic and has interviewed scores of dictators across the globe and aims to answer the question: does power corrupt or are the corrupt attracted to power?
The short answer is yes to both.
With many anecdotes and research, Klaas shows us that yes there are those with psychopathic, Machiavellian and narcissist tendencies and yes these people are attracted to positions of power and actively seek those positions. Once in place, the corrupt leverage their power into doing all the corrupt things we know these people do: consolidate the conformers, oust the dissenters, nepotism, exploitation and embezzlement.
The whole thing started when people made projectile weapons, Klaas argues. Before projectile weapons, power systems were diffusely distributed. Ranged weapons leveled the playing field placing intellect over brute force. Power hierarchy is a relatively recent human phenomenon as most prior power structures were flat. There is a trade off because flat societies have a bit of a ceiling where advancements and innovation become stagnant because every individual is doing individual things. Once ranged weapons and surplus came along with agriculture, bam, we've got power hierarchies happening and a corruption of those power systems. After the power hierarchy is set up, we have an evolutionary mismatch where our lizard brains may still believe that those with most bravado, those that are men (usually white), are still the most equipped to be leaders. This lends us to being manipulated and highly vulnerable to corrupt systems of governance.
So yes, those that are corrupt are attracted to power but Klaas reminds us that systems matter. A corrupt system will unleash the corrupt and have a further corrupting influence on those that are in power. With many examples Klaas shows us that if you make small changes within a system, you can quickly weed out corruption. Andrather than setting up systems of surveillance for those that are controlled, we should surveil those that are actually in power. We should make leaders second guess their decisions and have them never know if they are being watched.
Recruitment is the key solution. We need to attract people to powerful positions that don't actually want to be in power. These are highly likely to be incorruptible. Rather than looking at wins and losses, we should scrutinize the decision that was used before a good or bad outcome. We should focus on how good results came about just as much as bad results or we may be punitive to good leaders and reward those that are actually corrupts.
This was an excellent read and I found it eye opening and worthwhile. Highly recommend.
January 12, 2022
A perfect mix of research and narrative in my opinion. Didn't have so much fun reading a political science book since The Dictator's Handbook by Alastair Smith and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.
Not only is it a fun read, it also, and more importantly, delivers a much needed antidote to anyone who might feel tempted to believe in yet another anti-corruption crusader who comes from outside of politics (usually with bags of money) and promises to save us from the corrupt, self-serving politicians. "Look at me, I'm so rich and successful, I don't need to steal (anymore). You can trust me."
Somehow, this always ends in tears and yet people keep falling for the same old trick again and again. Brian Klass explains why this happens and what we need to do in order to escape this vicious cycle. If I was in government in any country, never mind how corrupt, I'd be calling Brian's agent right now to check if he does consulting...
Not only is it a fun read, it also, and more importantly, delivers a much needed antidote to anyone who might feel tempted to believe in yet another anti-corruption crusader who comes from outside of politics (usually with bags of money) and promises to save us from the corrupt, self-serving politicians. "Look at me, I'm so rich and successful, I don't need to steal (anymore). You can trust me."
Somehow, this always ends in tears and yet people keep falling for the same old trick again and again. Brian Klass explains why this happens and what we need to do in order to escape this vicious cycle. If I was in government in any country, never mind how corrupt, I'd be calling Brian's agent right now to check if he does consulting...
April 14, 2022
The basic of Klaas' work is to explore the adage of absolute power corrupting. Of all the non-fiction I've been reading regardless of topic this has to be one of the best balanced in terms of historic anecdotes, interviews, data and evidence and explanation I've read. It's one of those books that I just got absorbed in and then suddenly was like 'wait, its almost done?'
With an interesting non-judgemental but not so open minded their head falls out approach, the book explores many angles of power, ranging from local (e.g. police forces) to presidential and corporate. The main themes of the book are what sorts of people are attracted to power, what sorts of systems encourage or discourage corruption and finally how to encourage more legitimately competent people to power.
There is no particular stand out parts (because its all good) but I guess what stood out to me is some of the bizarre and horrific things people have done in positions of power whether tyrannical Home Owner Association presidents or Tyrannical genocidal presidents the book basically speaks for itself in terms of relevant.
Probably the final note is that this book felt quite positive, the strategies for reducing corruption didn't feel as out of reach as some worldly solutions feel right now, which was nice!
With an interesting non-judgemental but not so open minded their head falls out approach, the book explores many angles of power, ranging from local (e.g. police forces) to presidential and corporate. The main themes of the book are what sorts of people are attracted to power, what sorts of systems encourage or discourage corruption and finally how to encourage more legitimately competent people to power.
There is no particular stand out parts (because its all good) but I guess what stood out to me is some of the bizarre and horrific things people have done in positions of power whether tyrannical Home Owner Association presidents or Tyrannical genocidal presidents the book basically speaks for itself in terms of relevant.
Probably the final note is that this book felt quite positive, the strategies for reducing corruption didn't feel as out of reach as some worldly solutions feel right now, which was nice!
April 3, 2024
Wow, what a read!
I thought I would leave this book feeling angry at our current governments and societies for letting powerful people get away with corruption and that we were doomed to repeat history over and over.
Instead, I gained a deeper knowledge of human roots and behaviors, on nature, and centuries of innate beliefs that have shaped our communities today.
There are so many aspects and details in this book, backed by various scientific data that it doesn’t have to be the way it is now. There are feasible changes and small steps we can take to create change and most just systems.
Really great read! It was fascinating and attention grabbing with all the anecdotes and experiments!
I thought I would leave this book feeling angry at our current governments and societies for letting powerful people get away with corruption and that we were doomed to repeat history over and over.
Instead, I gained a deeper knowledge of human roots and behaviors, on nature, and centuries of innate beliefs that have shaped our communities today.
There are so many aspects and details in this book, backed by various scientific data that it doesn’t have to be the way it is now. There are feasible changes and small steps we can take to create change and most just systems.
Really great read! It was fascinating and attention grabbing with all the anecdotes and experiments!
January 17, 2022
The MSW Book Club named this book as its next choice, and when I heard the author’s interview on the podcast, I immediately wanted to join in. The main question the book explores is “does absolute power corrupt absolutely?” The answer is that while power is definitely corrupting, some people are more corruptible than others. Worse still, political systems over the millennia are rigged to attract the wrong people to power. So what can we do to make sure power goes to the least corruptible? The answers are given in illustrative and easily accessible anecdotes. They’re all about us flawed human beings. I highly recommend this book, and I’m looking forward to the discussions in the podcast book club.
August 14, 2022
Did I enjoy this book? Well, to answer that question we'll need to visit some Yaks on the Tibetan plateau and postal workers in rural Idaho.
It's clearly a well-researched book, but so much energy seems to have gone into finding quirky or unusual examples that the whole thing ends up feeling pretty unserious. Klaas often caveats these examples so its clear that we're not expected to understand them as applicable in all situations, but it also means that none of it is very convincing, even though I mostly agree with him. When he presents ideas for how to get more 'good' leaders, and keep them good, this is a particular problem. There is so little detail that it inspired no optimism.
It's clearly a well-researched book, but so much energy seems to have gone into finding quirky or unusual examples that the whole thing ends up feeling pretty unserious. Klaas often caveats these examples so its clear that we're not expected to understand them as applicable in all situations, but it also means that none of it is very convincing, even though I mostly agree with him. When he presents ideas for how to get more 'good' leaders, and keep them good, this is a particular problem. There is so little detail that it inspired no optimism.
November 7, 2023
Heavy re-hashing / synthesizing of social science research in the last 50-60 years, but a worthy launchpad to other more detailed studies. Of particular note were the discussions about the "petty tyrants" in work places, home owners' associations, and his shared case studies of Dark Triad traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
Also appreciated the call for inverting the surveillance state on modern workers to watch what the people in the corner offices are actually doing; why spend all this money on watching workers who "steal time" with longer lunch breaks and pocketing office supplies while the people up top are skimming off thousands, insider trading, and laundering?
Also appreciated the call for inverting the surveillance state on modern workers to watch what the people in the corner offices are actually doing; why spend all this money on watching workers who "steal time" with longer lunch breaks and pocketing office supplies while the people up top are skimming off thousands, insider trading, and laundering?
December 30, 2021
A typical start to a Corruptable paragraph sounds something like this...
"Are CEOs drawn to power due to their narcissism, Machiavellism, and psychopathy, or does the corporate ladder favour employees who display these traits?"
To answer this question, we'll look at the chemical composition of a prawn cocktail crisp, learn about rural France in 1368, and hear the story of a pony named Steve who learned to play the bassoon."
4.5*. V interesting read.
"Are CEOs drawn to power due to their narcissism, Machiavellism, and psychopathy, or does the corporate ladder favour employees who display these traits?"
To answer this question, we'll look at the chemical composition of a prawn cocktail crisp, learn about rural France in 1368, and hear the story of a pony named Steve who learned to play the bassoon."
4.5*. V interesting read.
April 20, 2022
I normally do not write reviews but this time I felt compelled to give my reasoning for a one star review.
Although the writer sounds educated and intelligent, his findings were not only skewed to a certain political bend but his method to bring the reader along were classic examples of logical fallacies. I was excited to read this treatise on leadership and corruption but I quickly found it nauseatingly shallow and opinionated. His base idea is humans who are in authority are the problem that can only be fixed by other humans who agree with him. It is one of the most biased books I have read in quite a while. That may be why so many are giving it a 5 ⭐️ review or I may just have missed all of the great parts. Either way, I barely finished this one and am glad it is done.
Although the writer sounds educated and intelligent, his findings were not only skewed to a certain political bend but his method to bring the reader along were classic examples of logical fallacies. I was excited to read this treatise on leadership and corruption but I quickly found it nauseatingly shallow and opinionated. His base idea is humans who are in authority are the problem that can only be fixed by other humans who agree with him. It is one of the most biased books I have read in quite a while. That may be why so many are giving it a 5 ⭐️ review or I may just have missed all of the great parts. Either way, I barely finished this one and am glad it is done.
October 31, 2022
Poskettoman hyvä kirja! Erittäin monipuolinen kuvaus siitä, miten valta vaikuttaa ihmiseen yksilönä ja yhteisönä. Esimerkkejä on todella laajalla mittakaavalla ja taustoitus tarkkaa. Loogisuuteen on panostettu pitkin matkaa ja kirjailija haastaa itseäänkin faktantarkistuksen osalta. Laaja kirja ei käy missään välissä tylsäksi ja opettaa lähes joka kappaleessa lukijaansa. Useassa kohdassa kirjailija systemaattisesti tappaa vääriä käsityksiä, ja vahvistaa oikeita. Paha Valta on matka ihmisyyteen ennen kaikkea. Se on myös konkreettinen kirja siitä, miten eri tilanteissa tulisi toimia parhaimman aikaan saamiseksi. Tätä kirjaa voi suositella aivan jokaiselle.
March 10, 2024
Corruptible is a book that explores the relationship between corruption and power, discerning between corruptible and incorruptible people, and seeking to provide answers to why most leaders, all over the world in various different fields, are corrupt and how we can prevent such leaders from rising to power.
The book is based on over 500 interviews with some of the world’s top leaders, from presidents and philanthropists to rebels, cultists, and dictators. The book examines what power is, who gets it, and what happens when they do.
The author traces our ancestral past to explain how we evolved into a hierarchy-based system, our deeply rooted bias in selecting the people that lead us, and the possibility of humanity’s genetic vulnerability to corruption.
It asks important questions such as whether power corrupts people or corrupt people seek power, and whether it is possible to have incorruptible people in power.
For the most part, I really enjoyed the book. It is well researched and well written but not necessarily engaging. The book suffers from the overload of information. The astronomical amount of studies, and seemingly unrelated anecdotes that the author uses to make a point becomes tedious. The author also habitually leaves each chapter by rejecting most of the studies and his hypothesis and raises more questions than answers. It made me wonder what the point of reading these long chapters was when at the end the author was going to reject his claims and move on to tackling a different topic.
Reading this book is like being drugged but not enough to feel the high.
However, I was able to connect the dots and find the answers that I was looking for. The book is informative and does fullfil its purpose albeit not in the most concise way.
----------------
The author claims that we typically choose tall, strong handsome men as leaders. He explains this bias by referring to our evolutionary history, when physical strength was a key factor for survival. Based on this theory, am I correct to assume that Americans find Biden and Trump physically strong and tall? 😬 I really don't think this study holds.
The author also attributes racism to our ancestral past. He argues that when we encounter someone who looks different from us, it activates our fear of strangers in our brain. If If this is true, then why don’t we hear about racism perpetrated by people of color that often?
There is an example in the book of how some Chinese factory owners hired white men to boost their reputation and influence among their competitors and government by having them pose as owners of offshore companies. This raises the question: did people of color learn to suppress their fear of strangers, or did they internalize the idea that white people are superior, instead of feeling threatened by them?
There is one part in particular that I have strong feelings for.
I don't think you can use the word jihad in such derogatory way. Jihad is self-defense, jihad is standing up for yourself, jihad is protecting your values, your culture, and your believes. It is resistance against people who wants to mould you into themselves or kill you. Resistance is natural when you attack someone's homeland. it's not intrinsically evil. I think it's time we stop pretending that there is no bias or hatred towards Muslims all over the world. What's happening in Palestine is unbelievably grim. The countries the US bombed in the middle east are still struggling both emotionally and financially. I don't think anybody asked the US to take their democracy to middle east, but they did it anyway. They bombed and then sent their democrats to mould the system into their own vision.
The person Bremer maybe was a good man who really believed that Iraq could benefit from American values, but he failed to understand that Iraq didn't want Americanization of their culture. They wanted to retain their identity and culture. Ordering to kill looters wasn't a wise move because most of them were children. I couldn't sympathize with Bremer, and I don't think he was a good example to represent incorruptibles in power.
The book is based on over 500 interviews with some of the world’s top leaders, from presidents and philanthropists to rebels, cultists, and dictators. The book examines what power is, who gets it, and what happens when they do.
The author traces our ancestral past to explain how we evolved into a hierarchy-based system, our deeply rooted bias in selecting the people that lead us, and the possibility of humanity’s genetic vulnerability to corruption.
It asks important questions such as whether power corrupts people or corrupt people seek power, and whether it is possible to have incorruptible people in power.
For the most part, I really enjoyed the book. It is well researched and well written but not necessarily engaging. The book suffers from the overload of information. The astronomical amount of studies, and seemingly unrelated anecdotes that the author uses to make a point becomes tedious. The author also habitually leaves each chapter by rejecting most of the studies and his hypothesis and raises more questions than answers. It made me wonder what the point of reading these long chapters was when at the end the author was going to reject his claims and move on to tackling a different topic.
Reading this book is like being drugged but not enough to feel the high.
However, I was able to connect the dots and find the answers that I was looking for. The book is informative and does fullfil its purpose albeit not in the most concise way.
----------------
The author claims that we typically choose tall, strong handsome men as leaders. He explains this bias by referring to our evolutionary history, when physical strength was a key factor for survival. Based on this theory, am I correct to assume that Americans find Biden and Trump physically strong and tall? 😬 I really don't think this study holds.
The author also attributes racism to our ancestral past. He argues that when we encounter someone who looks different from us, it activates our fear of strangers in our brain. If If this is true, then why don’t we hear about racism perpetrated by people of color that often?
There is an example in the book of how some Chinese factory owners hired white men to boost their reputation and influence among their competitors and government by having them pose as owners of offshore companies. This raises the question: did people of color learn to suppress their fear of strangers, or did they internalize the idea that white people are superior, instead of feeling threatened by them?
There is one part in particular that I have strong feelings for.
I don't think you can use the word jihad in such derogatory way. Jihad is self-defense, jihad is standing up for yourself, jihad is protecting your values, your culture, and your believes. It is resistance against people who wants to mould you into themselves or kill you. Resistance is natural when you attack someone's homeland. it's not intrinsically evil. I think it's time we stop pretending that there is no bias or hatred towards Muslims all over the world. What's happening in Palestine is unbelievably grim. The countries the US bombed in the middle east are still struggling both emotionally and financially. I don't think anybody asked the US to take their democracy to middle east, but they did it anyway. They bombed and then sent their democrats to mould the system into their own vision.
The person Bremer maybe was a good man who really believed that Iraq could benefit from American values, but he failed to understand that Iraq didn't want Americanization of their culture. They wanted to retain their identity and culture. Ordering to kill looters wasn't a wise move because most of them were children. I couldn't sympathize with Bremer, and I don't think he was a good example to represent incorruptibles in power.
December 25, 2021
This book asks a perennial but multi-faceted question (does power corrupt or do the corrupt seek power or does causality run both ways?) that has vexed political thinkers forever. The book is an entertaining read (I also listened to the Audible version read by Brian Klaas himself). Based on a wide-ranging survey of what different disciplines say about corruption, Klaas argues that there are practical and effective reforms that may help reduce corruption in the body politic. A Bulwark Podcast episode with Brian Klaas on 11/16/2021 triggered my interest in the book.
June 9, 2022
Power attracts corrupt people
On reading Klaas's Introduction, I was impressed. We start with an observation that we can all agree on: many powerful people are terrible at their jobs, in the sense of exercising power in a way that benefits themselves rather than those they have power over. Why is this?
An early stage in the investigation of a problem like this is hypothesis generation. It is an underappreciated part of the scientist's métier. Most people are not good at it -- they leap to the first obvious explanation and fail to see alternatives. In this case that explanation is Lord Acton's famous quote "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Klaas, however, is very good at this. He is creative and imaginative. I can't list all the ideas he comes up with, but they mostly fall into three categories: "People who are inherently corrupt are preferentially given power", "Being in power inevitably makes one appear to be corrupt", and "Power corrupts", as Acton claimed. And he doesn't make the rookie mistake of assuming that any one of these explanations excludes the others. They could all be true (and are).
He then proceeds to investigate these possibilities. And that is where I began to find the book a little disappointing. First, it is undeniable that we frequently do a bad job of choosing our leaders. This is partly because "we" includes the leaders -- leaders choose themselves, and those who are attracted to power are often not the ones who really ought to get it. But a bigger issue is that even those of us who don't want to be leaders do a terrible job of choosing. Klaas goes into considerable detail. What it comes down to, mostly, is cognitive bias.
At this point Corruptible began to remind me of popular physics books. If you read a lot of popular physics, you quickly learn that every pop physics book begins with the same 4-6 chapters bringing the reader up to speed on relativity and quantum mechanics. This rapidly becomes tedious. If you read a lot of books about human decision-making, you're going to wade through a whole lot of chapters about cognitive bias. In my opinion, the best book on the subject is Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Klaas could have saved a whole lot of time by saying: "Go read Thinking, Fast and Slow. I'll wait -- I'm a book, I'm good at waiting. Then come back and let me explain to you how cognitive bias comes into play when we choose leaders."
In considering Klaas's many hypotheses, one inevitably runs into the problem that while there are good data to support or refute some of them, in other cases the evidence is thin. Here Klaas did what a good scientist does: he does the best he can with the thin evidence available. However, I felt that he failed to fully acknowledge the weakness of his arguments in these places.
These chapters on choosing leaders are followed by a chapter on the health effects of leadership, which seemed largely irrelevant to the purpose of the book. And then he discusses why people in leadership may appear to be more corrupt than they are, and proceeds to the question of whether Lord Acton was right: Does power corrupt? The answer is a qualified "Yes." Power definitely corrupts, but usually not as much and as badly as people think. (I'm simplifying.)
We then proceed to the question of how to fix the problems. And this was my second major disappointment. Most of the solutions he discusses seem utterly impractical, in the sense that to be put in place they require the consent of the leadership, consent that is not going to be given. Also, some of his solutions seem to me to completely miss the point. For instance, he discusses why evaluating outcomes can be a misleading way to evaluate leaders. Corrupt leaders will game the outcomes, making it look as if their own outcomes are good and their competitors' bad. As a solution he suggests that we evaluate the quality of decision-making. That ain't gonna help, Dr Klaas. Corrupt leaders will game that, too. In fact, the inherent subjectivity of the evaluations you want are going to make it even easier for leadership to game them.
I think the most important and believable bottom line of the section on solutions is the suggestion to focus not so much on people as on systems. Klaas even has a few (very few, alas) real-world examples of such reforms working. I wish the solutions section of the book had focused more on things that have been shown to work.
In the end, Corruptible is useful but flawed. Not fatally flawed, but flawed enough to dampen enthusiasm.
On reading Klaas's Introduction, I was impressed. We start with an observation that we can all agree on: many powerful people are terrible at their jobs, in the sense of exercising power in a way that benefits themselves rather than those they have power over. Why is this?
An early stage in the investigation of a problem like this is hypothesis generation. It is an underappreciated part of the scientist's métier. Most people are not good at it -- they leap to the first obvious explanation and fail to see alternatives. In this case that explanation is Lord Acton's famous quote "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Klaas, however, is very good at this. He is creative and imaginative. I can't list all the ideas he comes up with, but they mostly fall into three categories: "People who are inherently corrupt are preferentially given power", "Being in power inevitably makes one appear to be corrupt", and "Power corrupts", as Acton claimed. And he doesn't make the rookie mistake of assuming that any one of these explanations excludes the others. They could all be true (and are).
He then proceeds to investigate these possibilities. And that is where I began to find the book a little disappointing. First, it is undeniable that we frequently do a bad job of choosing our leaders. This is partly because "we" includes the leaders -- leaders choose themselves, and those who are attracted to power are often not the ones who really ought to get it. But a bigger issue is that even those of us who don't want to be leaders do a terrible job of choosing. Klaas goes into considerable detail. What it comes down to, mostly, is cognitive bias.
At this point Corruptible began to remind me of popular physics books. If you read a lot of popular physics, you quickly learn that every pop physics book begins with the same 4-6 chapters bringing the reader up to speed on relativity and quantum mechanics. This rapidly becomes tedious. If you read a lot of books about human decision-making, you're going to wade through a whole lot of chapters about cognitive bias. In my opinion, the best book on the subject is Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Klaas could have saved a whole lot of time by saying: "Go read Thinking, Fast and Slow. I'll wait -- I'm a book, I'm good at waiting. Then come back and let me explain to you how cognitive bias comes into play when we choose leaders."
In considering Klaas's many hypotheses, one inevitably runs into the problem that while there are good data to support or refute some of them, in other cases the evidence is thin. Here Klaas did what a good scientist does: he does the best he can with the thin evidence available. However, I felt that he failed to fully acknowledge the weakness of his arguments in these places.
These chapters on choosing leaders are followed by a chapter on the health effects of leadership, which seemed largely irrelevant to the purpose of the book. And then he discusses why people in leadership may appear to be more corrupt than they are, and proceeds to the question of whether Lord Acton was right: Does power corrupt? The answer is a qualified "Yes." Power definitely corrupts, but usually not as much and as badly as people think. (I'm simplifying.)
We then proceed to the question of how to fix the problems. And this was my second major disappointment. Most of the solutions he discusses seem utterly impractical, in the sense that to be put in place they require the consent of the leadership, consent that is not going to be given. Also, some of his solutions seem to me to completely miss the point. For instance, he discusses why evaluating outcomes can be a misleading way to evaluate leaders. Corrupt leaders will game the outcomes, making it look as if their own outcomes are good and their competitors' bad. As a solution he suggests that we evaluate the quality of decision-making. That ain't gonna help, Dr Klaas. Corrupt leaders will game that, too. In fact, the inherent subjectivity of the evaluations you want are going to make it even easier for leadership to game them.
I think the most important and believable bottom line of the section on solutions is the suggestion to focus not so much on people as on systems. Klaas even has a few (very few, alas) real-world examples of such reforms working. I wish the solutions section of the book had focused more on things that have been shown to work.
In the end, Corruptible is useful but flawed. Not fatally flawed, but flawed enough to dampen enthusiasm.
October 16, 2023
Excellent.
June 23, 2024
A great book on corruptibility of humans.
So does power corrupt? Absolutely.
1. However sometimes people in power are forced to make unpopular decisions, and it is for everyone to see.
2. Power changes our brains to be more resistant to addiction, and makes us healthier, except at the top where we are afraid of being replaced.
Who gets power? Many psychopaths currently in government and C-suites. People who like power.
How to get the right people in power?
1. Change the system. For good police officers, show ads that policemen help people. For bad police officers, show ads that policemen kill people.
2. Do a trial for potential recruits
How to keep corruption low?
1. Have random reluctant citizen forming committees to give advice on policies. The dictator cannot go too far from it.
2. Rotate the officers. The more the rotation, the less the corruption.
3. Remind those in power the huge responsibility they have. Such as nuclear power instructions.
So does power corrupt? Absolutely.
1. However sometimes people in power are forced to make unpopular decisions, and it is for everyone to see.
2. Power changes our brains to be more resistant to addiction, and makes us healthier, except at the top where we are afraid of being replaced.
Who gets power? Many psychopaths currently in government and C-suites. People who like power.
How to get the right people in power?
1. Change the system. For good police officers, show ads that policemen help people. For bad police officers, show ads that policemen kill people.
2. Do a trial for potential recruits
How to keep corruption low?
1. Have random reluctant citizen forming committees to give advice on policies. The dictator cannot go too far from it.
2. Rotate the officers. The more the rotation, the less the corruption.
3. Remind those in power the huge responsibility they have. Such as nuclear power instructions.
July 10, 2022
"The trouble with the expert is never that he is not a man; it is always that wherever he is not an expert he is too much of an ordinary man. Wherever he is not exceptionally learned he is quite casually ignorant."
--G.K. Chesterton
This book is what you get when you leave a humanities scholar alone with a book deal, subscriptions to Reader's Digest and Popular Science, and minimal supervision. Klaas proposes to explore some of the commonly held beliefs about the effects of power on the character of those who seek it (with particular attention paid to Lord Acton's chestnut, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."). He makes his case, for the most part, based on illustrative anecdotes, told with a true storyteller's flourish. To do this, he relies on clickbaity, condensed versions of biological and psychological studies to buttress his conclusions, and covers the imbalance by disingenuously hiding behind the fig leaf a different axiom: "The plural of anecdote is not data."
It may not be data, but myriad anecdotes comprise the vast majority of his argument. One in particular proved, for me, to be the key to understanding the book as a whole. Early on, he discusses Survivorship Bias, and how during WWII, mathematician Albert Wald realized the way to strengthen Allied fighter planes was not to armor the portions of returning planes that were riddled with bullet holes, but instead to reinforce the parts of the plane that were intact. The damaged sections were not critical to a plane's safe return; the planes made it back because they were undamaged in the areas that were vulnerable. The evidence that was missing--the downed planes--was equally as important as the evidence that was in front of him. But unlike the Allied Generals, who presented Wald with an incomplete dataset because the downed planes were smoking hulks behind enemy lines, Klaas presents the reader with incomplete information when he could, with a bit more research or curiosity, easily do otherwise, in what may be a Machiavellian attempt at manipulating the reader's opinion.
He discusses the prospect of improved recruitment for positions of power, from New Zealand police departments to Computer Science programs at university, and notes the success of strategic alterations on increasing the diversity of applicants. But he provides no metrics on the rates of retention of these new recruits, nor on the delta in the rate of violent contacts between police and civilians, nor on the number of officers shot in the line of duty, nor on the graduation rate of CompSci students hailing from backgrounds in English Lit or Art History.
He describes how abuses of power are facilitated by dehumanizing language, which places "psychological distance" between those in power and the people abused, citing how American slaveholders called their captives "stock," and how the Nazis depicted Jews as rats and lice. To corroborate this, he cites so-called "moral ethicist" Peter Singer--a man who has no problem psychologically distancing himself from those he can label "not persons": the disabled, the aged, and the unborn.
If you feel you must read this book, read it like Albert Wald. Notice what's missing, because it's there that the story begins.
--G.K. Chesterton
This book is what you get when you leave a humanities scholar alone with a book deal, subscriptions to Reader's Digest and Popular Science, and minimal supervision. Klaas proposes to explore some of the commonly held beliefs about the effects of power on the character of those who seek it (with particular attention paid to Lord Acton's chestnut, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."). He makes his case, for the most part, based on illustrative anecdotes, told with a true storyteller's flourish. To do this, he relies on clickbaity, condensed versions of biological and psychological studies to buttress his conclusions, and covers the imbalance by disingenuously hiding behind the fig leaf a different axiom: "The plural of anecdote is not data."
It may not be data, but myriad anecdotes comprise the vast majority of his argument. One in particular proved, for me, to be the key to understanding the book as a whole. Early on, he discusses Survivorship Bias, and how during WWII, mathematician Albert Wald realized the way to strengthen Allied fighter planes was not to armor the portions of returning planes that were riddled with bullet holes, but instead to reinforce the parts of the plane that were intact. The damaged sections were not critical to a plane's safe return; the planes made it back because they were undamaged in the areas that were vulnerable. The evidence that was missing--the downed planes--was equally as important as the evidence that was in front of him. But unlike the Allied Generals, who presented Wald with an incomplete dataset because the downed planes were smoking hulks behind enemy lines, Klaas presents the reader with incomplete information when he could, with a bit more research or curiosity, easily do otherwise, in what may be a Machiavellian attempt at manipulating the reader's opinion.
He discusses the prospect of improved recruitment for positions of power, from New Zealand police departments to Computer Science programs at university, and notes the success of strategic alterations on increasing the diversity of applicants. But he provides no metrics on the rates of retention of these new recruits, nor on the delta in the rate of violent contacts between police and civilians, nor on the number of officers shot in the line of duty, nor on the graduation rate of CompSci students hailing from backgrounds in English Lit or Art History.
He describes how abuses of power are facilitated by dehumanizing language, which places "psychological distance" between those in power and the people abused, citing how American slaveholders called their captives "stock," and how the Nazis depicted Jews as rats and lice. To corroborate this, he cites so-called "moral ethicist" Peter Singer--a man who has no problem psychologically distancing himself from those he can label "not persons": the disabled, the aged, and the unborn.
If you feel you must read this book, read it like Albert Wald. Notice what's missing, because it's there that the story begins.
December 30, 2023
Here’s how you write a political science book nowadays.
One. find a topical thing to write about.
Why vein men become leaders.
Spend some time talking about how important your topic is and how now is the most critical time ever
we have never had an election where people were in conflict, ever, before this most recent/upcoming one. if things happen, I can guarantee more things will happen.
Politicians spend trillions of dollars on plastic surgery and DeSantis heel wedge budget is larger than the GDP of several small countries
Say that the current research on your topic is wrong.
the popular take is currently you think it be like it does. but it dont! Pay attention now, as I change the scope of the problem in order to be manageable and solvable in the next 250 pages
Find an anecdote that you can dive into the details and refute.
We all think "The emperor has no clothes" is a brave story of a child, speaking truth to power. but really, it’s about how powerful people use their influence to justify their vanity. the real tragedy in the story is the tailor forced to work for a vain leader!
Then supply your own research in the form of an opinion, based loosely on evolutionary psychology.
Many thousand years ago, as we evolved out of dolphins, evolution began to select for the most handsome humans in order to lead groups. This is because it was pleasing to look at them. And if it was pleasing to look at them, then that meant that people would be willing to spend more time listening to their shit.
Then, you have a nice little twist on the topic.
Really what we select for isn't vanity, its facial handsomeness. And like Machiabelli said "if your subjects don't find you handsome, they better find you handy"
Find like 5 to 10 salient examples of popular culture events. And reinterpret them through your new lens.
for best results, mention several unreplicable scientific studies, an obscure political battle in a country or readers, probably wouldn’t be familiar with (I’m partial to the Estonian system of checks and balances), a twitter poll you did, a wise child that came to you in a dream as justification for your points. if you have a consulting practice, this is a good place to plug it through making up just how much of an impact you’ve had for a client (real results not necessary)
Lastly, end with a hopeful message about how your framework can help facilitate change in the world
with love and kindness. universal basic kittens and socialized plastic surgery we can encourage even ugly people to pursue leadership positions
Whatever. This is a good, middling piece of political science book. A pop poly sci book, limited, largely by its format and topics covered. It’s interesting. I don’t believe any of it. Political science is an oxymoron. Read this to get some interesting tidbits and questionably replicable studies mixed in with a sort of light criticism of the social sciences.
One. find a topical thing to write about.
Why vein men become leaders.
Spend some time talking about how important your topic is and how now is the most critical time ever
we have never had an election where people were in conflict, ever, before this most recent/upcoming one. if things happen, I can guarantee more things will happen.
Politicians spend trillions of dollars on plastic surgery and DeSantis heel wedge budget is larger than the GDP of several small countries
Say that the current research on your topic is wrong.
the popular take is currently you think it be like it does. but it dont! Pay attention now, as I change the scope of the problem in order to be manageable and solvable in the next 250 pages
Find an anecdote that you can dive into the details and refute.
We all think "The emperor has no clothes" is a brave story of a child, speaking truth to power. but really, it’s about how powerful people use their influence to justify their vanity. the real tragedy in the story is the tailor forced to work for a vain leader!
Then supply your own research in the form of an opinion, based loosely on evolutionary psychology.
Many thousand years ago, as we evolved out of dolphins, evolution began to select for the most handsome humans in order to lead groups. This is because it was pleasing to look at them. And if it was pleasing to look at them, then that meant that people would be willing to spend more time listening to their shit.
Then, you have a nice little twist on the topic.
Really what we select for isn't vanity, its facial handsomeness. And like Machiabelli said "if your subjects don't find you handsome, they better find you handy"
Find like 5 to 10 salient examples of popular culture events. And reinterpret them through your new lens.
for best results, mention several unreplicable scientific studies, an obscure political battle in a country or readers, probably wouldn’t be familiar with (I’m partial to the Estonian system of checks and balances), a twitter poll you did, a wise child that came to you in a dream as justification for your points. if you have a consulting practice, this is a good place to plug it through making up just how much of an impact you’ve had for a client (real results not necessary)
Lastly, end with a hopeful message about how your framework can help facilitate change in the world
with love and kindness. universal basic kittens and socialized plastic surgery we can encourage even ugly people to pursue leadership positions
Whatever. This is a good, middling piece of political science book. A pop poly sci book, limited, largely by its format and topics covered. It’s interesting. I don’t believe any of it. Political science is an oxymoron. Read this to get some interesting tidbits and questionably replicable studies mixed in with a sort of light criticism of the social sciences.
January 9, 2022
I wish I had this book when I was writing my university paper on corruption. This was a captivating and informative look into the cogs and wheels that drive corruption as a social phenomenon and systemic problem.
I thoroughly enjoyed the journey the author takes us on. Many interconnected issues were explored and yet I didn't feel as if the author was "over-reaching". The transition from topics such as the "nature" versus "nurture" debate to evolutionary theories that may why society is drawn to certain types of people over others all made sense. I was extremely fascinated by the author's concise analysis into the age-old adage "absolute power corrupts absolutely".
The author also offers a rather innovative set of solutions that are aimed to go towards ameliorating corruption. By employing in what I perceive to be a "tiered" approach, the author explains corruption to be the result of self-selecting individuals (those who seek power) who reach positions of power and stay in power. The suggestions the author makes thus corresponds to various components of corruption in a systematic fashion.
Overall, a holistic and concise read. I'd be keen to read critiques on the author's analysis and solutions.
I thoroughly enjoyed the journey the author takes us on. Many interconnected issues were explored and yet I didn't feel as if the author was "over-reaching". The transition from topics such as the "nature" versus "nurture" debate to evolutionary theories that may why society is drawn to certain types of people over others all made sense. I was extremely fascinated by the author's concise analysis into the age-old adage "absolute power corrupts absolutely".
The author also offers a rather innovative set of solutions that are aimed to go towards ameliorating corruption. By employing in what I perceive to be a "tiered" approach, the author explains corruption to be the result of self-selecting individuals (those who seek power) who reach positions of power and stay in power. The suggestions the author makes thus corresponds to various components of corruption in a systematic fashion.
Overall, a holistic and concise read. I'd be keen to read critiques on the author's analysis and solutions.
January 12, 2022
Was nice to read a pop psychology book that pulled it’s weight academically. It referenced the replication crisis, acknowledged limitations of most psychology experiments being performed on WEIRD university undergrads, and debunked many over referenced/under criticized experiments (Milgrim, Stanford Prison, etc).
The theorizing about power was genuinely thought provoking. Does power corrupt or are corruptible people drawn to power? And if both, how do you limit the corruption of leaders in any context? Klaas drew on examples from despot dictators to psychopathic janitors to tyrannical homeowners associations which helped to keep it juicy and upbeat. For the most part it was also surprisingly non-partisan.
Klaas has some cool ideas about what change could look like - sortition (governance or oversight by random chance selection), surveillance of the powerful instead of the masses, active recruitment of incorruptible people (especially of the not white men variety), and ensuring that the powerful cannot reduce human suffering to abstraction.
The author did love using a cheesy outro on every chapter to lead in to the next one. I still don’t know if I hated it or thought it was cute. Probably both.
Good vibes though.
The theorizing about power was genuinely thought provoking. Does power corrupt or are corruptible people drawn to power? And if both, how do you limit the corruption of leaders in any context? Klaas drew on examples from despot dictators to psychopathic janitors to tyrannical homeowners associations which helped to keep it juicy and upbeat. For the most part it was also surprisingly non-partisan.
Klaas has some cool ideas about what change could look like - sortition (governance or oversight by random chance selection), surveillance of the powerful instead of the masses, active recruitment of incorruptible people (especially of the not white men variety), and ensuring that the powerful cannot reduce human suffering to abstraction.
The author did love using a cheesy outro on every chapter to lead in to the next one. I still don’t know if I hated it or thought it was cute. Probably both.
Good vibes though.
October 30, 2021
Well documented, organized and written. I agree with 95% of Brian Klaas's views regarding those who hold power and wish to attain it. Current events support these views.... Overall, an excellent read, especially for those interested in psychology, sociology, current affairs, political science, etc. I would recommend it to anyone interested in any of the social sciences or college students looking for research material.
My copy of this book was obtained from a Goodreads giveaway. I appreciate the opportunity to read and review it.
My copy of this book was obtained from a Goodreads giveaway. I appreciate the opportunity to read and review it.
November 24, 2021
Brian is an excellent writer -- erudite and entertaining at the same time. I'm amazed at the fascinating examples he finds both in history and in the present to illustrate his points.
May 17, 2022
Better than Scary Movie!
May 24, 2022
Interesting exploration of power and how it can corrupt individuals - or not. Lots of case studies but little information or guidance on how to prevent that corruption. Writing is chatty.
June 11, 2022
Truly excellent. So interesting. And the author can be so funny. I was extremely invested. Will recommend to everyone
July 3, 2024
باسمه
🔰 فکر میکنم اگه هر زمان دیگهای غیر از این بازه میخوندمش، کمتر ازش بهره میبردم و درکش میکردم؛ همین بازه کوتاهی در عرض چهار ماه، چهار تا انتخابات رو داریم تجربه میکنیم... خوندن «قدرت و فساد» میتونه برای هر کسی قبل از اینکه تصمیم بگیره رأی بده یا نده، یا اینکه به کی رأی بده، کمک خوبی باشه. تا حالا زیاد شده بود که از کیفیت پایین برخی مسئولین گله بکنم؛ اما معمولاً از این سطح پایینتر نرفته بودم... و چقدر اشتباه بود! تا حالا اینطور دقیق نشده بودم که اصلاً قدرتی که میگیم چیه، سلسلهمراتب برای چی وجود داره، فساد چی هست، چی نیست و چرا حاصل میشه. خلاصه از اون نگاه انتزاعی که به صورت عادی ممکنه داشته باشیم، خیلی فاصله داره و جداً بهم کمک کرد که نگاهم به قدرت و کارگزارانش واقعی باشه؛ نه بر مبنای هیاهو، لجنپراکنی و حتی شبه آرمانگرایی موضعی...
🔰 شروع کتاب بسیار شوکه کننده هست! مقایسه دو جمع در شرایط یکسان که یکی منجر به فاجعه شده و یکی منجر به نجات... همین طلیعه ورود قدرتمندی به موضوع هست. با طی کردن مسیری طولانی، از شروع حیات بر زمین تا انسان معاصر، نکات عجیبی بیان میشه که در نگاه اول ارتباطش با موضوع قابل درک نیست؛ در ادامه میفهمیم که چه خبره... چاق شدن ما چرا اینقدر راحته؟ پلیس آمریکا چرا هیچوقت از نگاههای نژادی تخلیه نمیشه؟ همینقدر دور! از مسیر پاسخ به این سوالات به ظاهر غیرمرتبط، کم کم پاسخ به سوالات اساسی مشخص میشه: چرا فاسدها در قدرت هستن، چرا به قدرت میرسن، چرا این خیلی درست نیست (و چرا فکر میکنیم اینطور هست)، اثرات قدرت بر افراد چیه و چه باید کرد.
🔰 در کنار فهم عمیقی که کتاب به خواننده میده، یک گام جدی رو به جلوی اون، ایدههای اجراییش هست. گرچه ممکنه این موارد فاصله زیادی از امکان پیادهسازی در همه جا داشته با��ن؛ ولی به شدت قابل تأمل هستن... طبعاً ارزشهای ما ممکنه متفاوت باشه؛ اما دغدغههای یکسانی در سراسر جهان هم میتونیم داشته باشیم. به همین خاطر، علیرغم برخی تفاوت نظرها، واقعاً فوقالعاده بود.
🔰 واقعاً برام جذابه که از دانش پیچیده جامعهشناسی، همچین کتاب صمیمی و خوشخوانی در بیاد که اتفاقاً حرف گفتنی هم زیاد داشته باشه! با وجود این بستر، در طول مسیر از ژنتیک، تاریخ، جغرافیا، ریاضیات، روانشناسی و بسیاری دانشها و علوم دیگه میخونیم و جذبش میشیم! ما با قدرتمندان مختلفی آشنا میشیم؛ از حاکمی با دو سرزمین و دو نوع حکمرانی تا حاکم آدمخوار. از رهبر یه فرقه ضاله تا مدیر ساختمان و حتی سرایداری که برای حفظ قدرتش ترور میکنه! ما با اندیشمندان و مطالعاتشون هم آشنا میشیم و میفهمیم چقدر بعضیاشون الکی و بیپشتوانه هستن؛ اما یه سری مدعی روی همونها چقدر نسخه میپیچن... نکته بسیار مثبت این کتاب، همینه که پر از مطالعه (پشتوانه علمی برای مدعیات) هست که هر کدوم جذابیت خاصی هم دارن؛ اما تعصبی روی اونها نداره و اگه از نظرش ضعفی دارن، فوراً ذکرش میکنه 👌
✅ ترجمههای قبلی نشر همان از آقای مهدیزاده، برای من روان نبود. سر همین وقتی دیدم ایشون مترجم این کتاب هستن، اول ترسیدم که اون تجربیات قراره تکرار بشه؛ ولی الحمدلله واقعاً خوب ترجمه شده بود. کتاب «ذهن تراژیک» رو یادتونه سرش چقدر غر زدم؟ هدف این دوتا کتاب، یکسانه؛ اما روش، بیان و رویکردهای متفاوتی دارن که باعث شد این کتاب واقعاً برام جالب و جذاب باشه. توی یادداشت مربوط به همون کتاب، از نگاه سیرمحور این نشر در انتخاب کتابهاشون گفتم. حقیقتاً دمشون گرم ❤️ خلاصه بهتون توصیه میکنم حتماً کتاب رو بخونین. إن شاءالله بهترینها نصیب ملت ما در انتخابات پیشرو بشه.
🔰 فکر میکنم اگه هر زمان دیگهای غیر از این بازه میخوندمش، کمتر ازش بهره میبردم و درکش میکردم؛ همین بازه کوتاهی در عرض چهار ماه، چهار تا انتخابات رو داریم تجربه میکنیم... خوندن «قدرت و فساد» میتونه برای هر کسی قبل از اینکه تصمیم بگیره رأی بده یا نده، یا اینکه به کی رأی بده، کمک خوبی باشه. تا حالا زیاد شده بود که از کیفیت پایین برخی مسئولین گله بکنم؛ اما معمولاً از این سطح پایینتر نرفته بودم... و چقدر اشتباه بود! تا حالا اینطور دقیق نشده بودم که اصلاً قدرتی که میگیم چیه، سلسلهمراتب برای چی وجود داره، فساد چی هست، چی نیست و چرا حاصل میشه. خلاصه از اون نگاه انتزاعی که به صورت عادی ممکنه داشته باشیم، خیلی فاصله داره و جداً بهم کمک کرد که نگاهم به قدرت و کارگزارانش واقعی باشه؛ نه بر مبنای هیاهو، لجنپراکنی و حتی شبه آرمانگرایی موضعی...
🔰 شروع کتاب بسیار شوکه کننده هست! مقایسه دو جمع در شرایط یکسان که یکی منجر به فاجعه شده و یکی منجر به نجات... همین طلیعه ورود قدرتمندی به موضوع هست. با طی کردن مسیری طولانی، از شروع حیات بر زمین تا انسان معاصر، نکات عجیبی بیان میشه که در نگاه اول ارتباطش با موضوع قابل درک نیست؛ در ادامه میفهمیم که چه خبره... چاق شدن ما چرا اینقدر راحته؟ پلیس آمریکا چرا هیچوقت از نگاههای نژادی تخلیه نمیشه؟ همینقدر دور! از مسیر پاسخ به این سوالات به ظاهر غیرمرتبط، کم کم پاسخ به سوالات اساسی مشخص میشه: چرا فاسدها در قدرت هستن، چرا به قدرت میرسن، چرا این خیلی درست نیست (و چرا فکر میکنیم اینطور هست)، اثرات قدرت بر افراد چیه و چه باید کرد.
🔰 در کنار فهم عمیقی که کتاب به خواننده میده، یک گام جدی رو به جلوی اون، ایدههای اجراییش هست. گرچه ممکنه این موارد فاصله زیادی از امکان پیادهسازی در همه جا داشته با��ن؛ ولی به شدت قابل تأمل هستن... طبعاً ارزشهای ما ممکنه متفاوت باشه؛ اما دغدغههای یکسانی در سراسر جهان هم میتونیم داشته باشیم. به همین خاطر، علیرغم برخی تفاوت نظرها، واقعاً فوقالعاده بود.
🔰 واقعاً برام جذابه که از دانش پیچیده جامعهشناسی، همچین کتاب صمیمی و خوشخوانی در بیاد که اتفاقاً حرف گفتنی هم زیاد داشته باشه! با وجود این بستر، در طول مسیر از ژنتیک، تاریخ، جغرافیا، ریاضیات، روانشناسی و بسیاری دانشها و علوم دیگه میخونیم و جذبش میشیم! ما با قدرتمندان مختلفی آشنا میشیم؛ از حاکمی با دو سرزمین و دو نوع حکمرانی تا حاکم آدمخوار. از رهبر یه فرقه ضاله تا مدیر ساختمان و حتی سرایداری که برای حفظ قدرتش ترور میکنه! ما با اندیشمندان و مطالعاتشون هم آشنا میشیم و میفهمیم چقدر بعضیاشون الکی و بیپشتوانه هستن؛ اما یه سری مدعی روی همونها چقدر نسخه میپیچن... نکته بسیار مثبت این کتاب، همینه که پر از مطالعه (پشتوانه علمی برای مدعیات) هست که هر کدوم جذابیت خاصی هم دارن؛ اما تعصبی روی اونها نداره و اگه از نظرش ضعفی دارن، فوراً ذکرش میکنه 👌
✅ ترجمههای قبلی نشر همان از آقای مهدیزاده، برای من روان نبود. سر همین وقتی دیدم ایشون مترجم این کتاب هستن، اول ترسیدم که اون تجربیات قراره تکرار بشه؛ ولی الحمدلله واقعاً خوب ترجمه شده بود. کتاب «ذهن تراژیک» رو یادتونه سرش چقدر غر زدم؟ هدف این دوتا کتاب، یکسانه؛ اما روش، بیان و رویکردهای متفاوتی دارن که باعث شد این کتاب واقعاً برام جالب و جذاب باشه. توی یادداشت مربوط به همون کتاب، از نگاه سیرمحور این نشر در انتخاب کتابهاشون گفتم. حقیقتاً دمشون گرم ❤️ خلاصه بهتون توصیه میکنم حتماً کتاب رو بخونین. إن شاءالله بهترینها نصیب ملت ما در انتخابات پیشرو بشه.
June 19, 2025
Vooraleer je aan dit boek begint, moet je eigenlijk eerst het boek over de Batavia lezen. Ik heb daar ook een review over geschreven. Dat boek gaat over de schipbreukelingen van de Batavia op een onooglijk klein eiland voor de kust van Australië. Een psychopatische apotheker grijpt er de macht en wat volgt is een absoluut horrorverhaal van machtsmisbruik. In dit boek gaan we na hoe we zoiets misschien kunnen vermijden.
Als je over macht spreekt, moet je het ook over hiërarchie hebben. De mensheid heeft zeer lang in egalitaire samenlevingen geleefd, maar na de introductie van landbouw, waren er opeens mensen die "boven" anderen konden staan.
"Hiërarchie is als vuur. Je kunt het gebruiken om eten op te koken voor mensen of om die mensen mee te verbranden. Maar zonder dat vuur zouden de wonderen der beschaving niet bestaan. Hiërarchie is de enige vorm waarin mensen in grootschalige samenlevingen kunnen samenwerken en afstemmen. En omdat hiërarchie competitie uitlokt, brengt het ook innovatie voort."
Enkele zeer interessant theorieën passeren de revue, zoals bv. het feit dat mensen die in de gaten worden gehouden, aardiger zijn. Vroeger hadden we daar alziende goden voor. Tegenwoordig hebben we daar zelfs A.I. voor.
Jeremy Bentham zou in z'n handen hebben gewreven. Hij was de grondlegger van het utilitarisme (maximaliseren van geluk) en bedenker van het panopticum, een gevangenis of school waar dankzij slimme architectuur opzichters alles in de gaten houden. Maar, eigenlijk zouden we veel beter de machthebbers in de gaten houden dan de kleine man! De Grote Goden hielden in elk geval iedereen nog in de gaten.
Dikwijls schrijf ik op het einde van een boekbespreking: "iedereen moet dit boek lezen!", of "politici zouden dit zeker eens moeten lezen!" Maar als een machtsbeluste politicus dit leest, zou hij ook wel eens alle truken uit dit boek kunnen gebruiken om over te komen als iemand die net geen machtswellusteling is...
Als je over macht spreekt, moet je het ook over hiërarchie hebben. De mensheid heeft zeer lang in egalitaire samenlevingen geleefd, maar na de introductie van landbouw, waren er opeens mensen die "boven" anderen konden staan.
"Hiërarchie is als vuur. Je kunt het gebruiken om eten op te koken voor mensen of om die mensen mee te verbranden. Maar zonder dat vuur zouden de wonderen der beschaving niet bestaan. Hiërarchie is de enige vorm waarin mensen in grootschalige samenlevingen kunnen samenwerken en afstemmen. En omdat hiërarchie competitie uitlokt, brengt het ook innovatie voort."
Enkele zeer interessant theorieën passeren de revue, zoals bv. het feit dat mensen die in de gaten worden gehouden, aardiger zijn. Vroeger hadden we daar alziende goden voor. Tegenwoordig hebben we daar zelfs A.I. voor.
Jeremy Bentham zou in z'n handen hebben gewreven. Hij was de grondlegger van het utilitarisme (maximaliseren van geluk) en bedenker van het panopticum, een gevangenis of school waar dankzij slimme architectuur opzichters alles in de gaten houden. Maar, eigenlijk zouden we veel beter de machthebbers in de gaten houden dan de kleine man! De Grote Goden hielden in elk geval iedereen nog in de gaten.
Dikwijls schrijf ik op het einde van een boekbespreking: "iedereen moet dit boek lezen!", of "politici zouden dit zeker eens moeten lezen!" Maar als een machtsbeluste politicus dit leest, zou hij ook wel eens alle truken uit dit boek kunnen gebruiken om over te komen als iemand die net geen machtswellusteling is...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 318 reviews