I really enjoyed this article, especially because it touched on a topic of real interest to me - ethical failure in leadership. It appeared when you talked about the different leadership dynamics and mentioned “predatory” leadership.
I remember coming across the concept of the “Bathsheba Syndrome” many years ago (link below). The idea is that the success that comes with leadership can corrupt the individual. Although there might be some truth to that, I question whether it is this simple. For example, could it be that predatory leadership emerges because:
(a) Leadership attracts a certain (Machiavellian) type of individual?
(b) We are all susceptible to temptation, and having access to the levers of powers creates far more opportunities to be seduced?
(c) Something else?
In any case, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this, especially given how you apply a game theoretic lens to your thinking. And if you’re amenable, I would really enjoy collaborating on an article with you on this topic 🙂
Love contrast of Hobbes/Bueno de Mesquita. would love to hear your thoughts on the “Rule for Rulers” video from CGP Grey and an expansion of how selectorate theory applies to the 2016-2024 elections.
I was not aware of this video. I watched it following your comment, and it is excellent. It was clear that it was inspired by elements of selectorate theory—the U-shaped curve of stability, with dictatorships and democracies at both ends (around 13'), is a direct prediction of the theory. I then noticed that the video credits Bueno de Mesquita and Smith's book on dictatorship, which makes perfect sense.
Regarding your question, one relevant insight from the coalitional theory of political power for recent elections is that the US Democrats (and other left-wing parties elsewhere) pursued policies that were not supported by the majority of the population (as per opinion polls) but were almost unanimously endorsed by liberal-dominated institutions (media organisations, social media companies, universities). This was an unstable situation. That said, a coalitional perspective also helps explain how internal power dynamics within political parties led to this outcome. As pointed out in CGP Grey’s video, it is not that political leaders are foolish, but rather that they are playing the game of power within their parties. I'll talk about these in future posts.
Lionel
I really enjoyed this article, especially because it touched on a topic of real interest to me - ethical failure in leadership. It appeared when you talked about the different leadership dynamics and mentioned “predatory” leadership.
I remember coming across the concept of the “Bathsheba Syndrome” many years ago (link below). The idea is that the success that comes with leadership can corrupt the individual. Although there might be some truth to that, I question whether it is this simple. For example, could it be that predatory leadership emerges because:
(a) Leadership attracts a certain (Machiavellian) type of individual?
(b) We are all susceptible to temptation, and having access to the levers of powers creates far more opportunities to be seduced?
(c) Something else?
In any case, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this, especially given how you apply a game theoretic lens to your thinking. And if you’re amenable, I would really enjoy collaborating on an article with you on this topic 🙂
Well done.
https://facultyweb.kennesaw.edu/uzimmerm/docs/LudwigLongenecker%20The%20Bathsheba%20Syndrome.pdf
Answered in DM
Excellent read!
Love contrast of Hobbes/Bueno de Mesquita. would love to hear your thoughts on the “Rule for Rulers” video from CGP Grey and an expansion of how selectorate theory applies to the 2016-2024 elections.
I was not aware of this video. I watched it following your comment, and it is excellent. It was clear that it was inspired by elements of selectorate theory—the U-shaped curve of stability, with dictatorships and democracies at both ends (around 13'), is a direct prediction of the theory. I then noticed that the video credits Bueno de Mesquita and Smith's book on dictatorship, which makes perfect sense.
Regarding your question, one relevant insight from the coalitional theory of political power for recent elections is that the US Democrats (and other left-wing parties elsewhere) pursued policies that were not supported by the majority of the population (as per opinion polls) but were almost unanimously endorsed by liberal-dominated institutions (media organisations, social media companies, universities). This was an unstable situation. That said, a coalitional perspective also helps explain how internal power dynamics within political parties led to this outcome. As pointed out in CGP Grey’s video, it is not that political leaders are foolish, but rather that they are playing the game of power within their parties. I'll talk about these in future posts.
This feels like a 21st century version of Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy. Fascinating read, thank you!
Cool post! You have a knack for underpinning intuitive beliefs with (usually game) theoretical evidence, making the conclusion self-evident.
That guy on the throne in the cartoon looks remarkably like you, BTW—was that intentional?🤣