It applies to Der Movement.
We can ignore the absurd sociopolitical implications and statements in this paper made by the (obviously leftist) authors; e.g., that European-Americans are socially more powerful than are Coloreds and men are socially more powerful than women, while the reality of today’s Multicultural America is that the White man is a low caste subaltern demographic, discriminated against by both law and politically correct custom, and that the socially dominant groups are Jews, Coloreds, and shrieking feminist harridan women.
In all cases, emphasis added.
The fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense that Energy is the fundamental concept in physics . . . The laws of social dynamics are laws which can only be stated in terms of power. (Russell, B. 1938. Power: A new social analysis. London: Allen and Unwin, page 10.)
We define power as an individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments.
That’s as good definition as any. One can think of ways this applies to Der Movement. One example – withholding access to blog forums and “banning” critics from participation.
Elevated power, we propose, involves reward-rich environments and freedom and, as a consequence, triggers approach-related positive affect, attention to rewards, automatic cognition, and disinhibited behavior. In contrast, reduced power is associated with increased threat, punishment, and social constraint and thereby activates inhibition-related negative affect, vigilant, systematic cognition, and situationally constrained behavior.
This is key. Why do people always want positions of authority? To think it is only about material rewards betrays a strictly economic-materialist worldview. Status? Yes, but status leads to power itself, and what good is status anyway? The satisfaction of exercising authority and getting your ideas actualized? Self-actualization itself? Why are any of those things desirable? Answer – it leads to: less stress, lower cortisol levels, more testosterone, more uninhibited behavior, a more positive affect in every way; people in power feel better, they are objectively better even at the level of their hormones. Those not in power are depressed, anxious, inhibited, wary and worried, have a negative affect, more stress, and a negative hormonal profile. Think of the contrast: a person who makes decisions about others, or another person who has decisions made about him by a powerful manager. The first person controls his fate, the second person has his fate controlled by someone else. Who do you think actually has more stress? Feels better or worse?
When those in power complain about how “stressed” they are, and the “burdens” of “power and responsibility,” that is just a bunch of “squid ink” to fool their subordinates. In reality, it are those subordinates who are the stressed and burdened. If those in power were really “suffering” so much, why don’t they just resign their positions of authority and let someone else do it, eh?
Authority is power that derives from institutionalized roles or arrangements…Dominance is behavior that has the acquisition of power as its end, yet power can be attained without performing acts of dominance (e.g., leaders who attain their positions through their cooperative and fair-minded style). Thus status, authority, and dominance are all potential determinants of power as we define it.
Including “status” as a “movement leader.”
Powerful managers, as a consequence, valued subordinates’ performances less, attributed subordinates’ efforts to their own control rather than subordinates’ motivations, and desired greater distance from their subordinates.
Look at the tinpot “leaders” of Der Movement, who exemplify these traits very precisely.
Certain physical characteristics…are also associated with elevated power.
Such as Der Movement’s ethnic affirmative action program.
…we predict that elevated power will be associated with increased positive mood (Hypothesis 1) High-power individuals more frequently experience and express positive mood and emotion. Low-power individuals more frequently experience and express negative mood and emotion. This pattern of results was observed across various measures of affect, measurement contexts, and determinants of power (e.g., peer ratings, ethnicity, and SES).
That was discussed above. Power improves quality of life. It is the ultimate stimulant. Powerlessness is a depressant.
We propose that high-power individuals, who are disposed to approach, will attend to potential rewards rather than to threats and as a consequence will construe others through a lens of self-interest…We further expect low-power individuals to selectively attend to punishments and threats (Hypothesis 7). The literature on anxiety lends indirect support to this hypothesis.
Potential rewards, like the tin cup panhandling. Or sex. The increase in positive affect is the primary reward, but why not enrich yourself in other ways at the same time?
…elevated power is associated with more automatic, less complex styles of reasoning, whereas reduced power increases controlled information processing, deliberation, and the complexity of thought.
“Less complex styles of reasoning.” See – Extreme vetting meaning “are you Swedish?” Charlottesville Ragnarok. Decades of constant failure and an inability to build an infrastructure. The inability to realize you need such an infrastructure before “going public.” Regurgitating fossilized dogma over and over again. The constant Man on White Horse Syndrome mistakes, repeated endlessly. Adulterous trailer park soap operas. Gambling away supporter donations.
Proposition 12: Elevated Power Increases the Likelihood of Socially Inappropriate Behavior
Behold Der Movement! Drunken Beavis-and-Butthead podcasts. Acting like jackasses. Petty feuding. Adultery with colleagues’ wives. Gambling with supporter donations. The list goes on.
More generally, we would expect factors that reduce the freedom with which the powerful can act to dampen approach-related tendencies. In fact, many social values and practices, from conceptions of virtuous leaders to institutionalized checks and balances, have as their very purpose the placing of constraints on those with power. Drawing on extant literatures, we propose that three processes—stability of power relations, accountability, and social values embodied in cultural and individual differences—act as constraints, thus moderating the effects of power on affect, cognition, and behavior.
Note the importance of accountability (and see the next point, below). Of course those in power in Der Movement want to protect their petty fiefdoms by reacting hysterically to anyone who wants to hold them accountable. Those in power have an inherent distaste for accountability, which by its very nature restrains their power and suppresses the positive affect they derive from that power.
The excesses of powerful leaders—their propensity for disinhibited behavior and stereotypic, error-prone social perceptions—are certain to feed into the processes that lead to changes in leadership.
And that is one key to EGI Notes – enabling the processes that hold “movement” “leadership” accountable for their behavior and for their failure, leading to “changes in leadership.” “Error prone perceptions” – isn’t that interesting, particularly how I have been chronicling how Der Movement’s “leaders” are constantly wrong, while the “crazy and bitter” Ted Sallis is constantly correct.
Leaders can of course justify their power and its rewards by contributing positively to whatever they are leading, by benefiting others as they themselves benefit, by producing value for others, for their people, and for society. In this manner, the positive affect and other rewards of power can be viewed as justified compensation. But if the leaders are inept – at times, actually destructive – then they are just free-riding parasites.