A new tool can spot early signs of dementia
Researchers develop the first objective tool for assessing the onset of cognitive decline through the measurement of white spots in the brain.
27 October, 2020
Credit: Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock
- MRI brain scans may show white spots that scientists believe are linked to cognitive decline.
- Experts have had no objective means of counting and measuring these lesions.
- A new tool has just been published that both counts white spots and cleverly measures their volumes.
<p>Doctors have suspected for some time that white spots appearing in MRI brain scans are associated with cognitive decline. However, the relationship between the number and size of spots and the likelihood of dementia has been mostly a judgement call. Now a new study from New York University's Grossman Medical Center proposes the first standardized, objective measurement tool designed to predict cognitive decline when considered alongside other factors.</p><p>The study is published in the journal <a href="https://www.academicradiology.org/article/S1076-6332(20)30486-4/fulltext" target="_blank"><em>Academic Radiology</em></a>.</p>
White spots and educated guesses
<p>The white spots, or "hyperintensities," are brain lesions, fluid-filled holes in the brain believed to have been left behind by the breaking down of blood vessels that had previously provided nourishment to brain cells.</p><p>Prior to the new research, the quantity of white spots was assessed using an imprecise three-point scale indicating an ascending likelihoods of dementia: A minimal number of spots was considered as level 1, a medium number of spots level 2, and a great number of them level 3.</p>How the new measurements were derived
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDYwMTc1OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNDQ1ODExNX0.vqhQJSvL99KjOe24TOs4E8R7c6-pprbXYSrGcIqbVps/img.jpg?width=980" id="c64d9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="002d9b8ef47b5a86c3a387ad2cd90629" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Credit: sfam_photo/Shutterstock
<p>The team of researchers from NYU's Langone's <a href="https://med.nyu.edu/departments-institutes/neurology/divisions-centers/center-cognitive-neurology" target="_blank">Center for Cognitive Neurology</a> and <a href="https://med.nyu.edu/departments-institutes/neurology/divisions-centers/center-cognitive-neurology/alzheimers-disease-research-center" target="_blank">Alzheimer's Disease Research Center</a> were led by <a href="https://med.nyu.edu/faculty/jingyun-chen" target="_blank">Jingyun "Josh" Chen</a>. They analyzed 72 MRI scans from a national database of older people taken as part of the <a href="http://adni.loni.usc.edu" target="_blank">Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative</a> (ADNI). The scans were mostly of white people over age 70, and there were a roughly equivalent number of men and women. Some had normal brain function, some were presenting moderate cognitive decline, and some had severe dementia.</p><p>Without knowing each individual's diagnosis, the researchers analyzed the white spots in their scans. While the team counted each scan's lesions, the innovation they introduced was the production of a 3D measurement for each lesion's fluid volume. The measurement was derived by measuring a lesion's distance from opposite sides of the brain.</p><p>Measurements of 0 milliliters (mL) were assessed for areas without white spots, with other white spots coming up as containing 60 mL of fluid. Chen's team predicted that volumes over 100 milliliters could signify severe dementia.</p><p>"Amounts of white matter lesions above the normal range should serve as an early warning sign for patients and physicians," Chen tells <a href="https://nyulangone.org/news/white-matter-lesion-mapping-tool-identifies-early-signs-dementia" target="_blank">NYU Langone Health NewsHub</a>.</p><p>When the team compared the likely diagnoses derived from their calculations against the individuals' medical records, they found that their predictions were correct about 7 out of 10 times.</p><p>The researchers compiled their formulas into a tool that's available to physicians online for free online at <a href="https://github.com/jingyunc/wmhs" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">GitHub</a>. The researchers plan to further refine and test it using an additional 1,495 brain scans representing a more diverse group of individuals from the ADNI database.</p>The new tool and its limits
<p>Chen notes that white spots alone may not tell the entire story of an individual's cognitive decline or the onset of dementia. Other factors must be considered as well, including memory loss, hypertension, and brain injuries.</p><p>Nonetheless, says senior investigator <a href="https://med.nyu.edu/faculty/yulin-ge" target="_blank">Yulin Ge</a>, "Our new calculator for properly sizing white matter hyperintensities, which we call 'bilateral distancing,' offers radiologists and other clinicians an additional standardized test for assessing these lesions in the brain, well before severe dementia or stroke damage."</p><p>Having an objective means of measuring white hyperintensities will allow physicians not only to get a better handle on the association between white spots and dementia, but also to track the spots alongside changes to a person's tau and beta-amyloid proteins, two chemicals implicated in Alzheimer's disease and dementia.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
How do lie detectors work?
Experts explain how lie detectors work, what happens in the brain when we tell lies and how accurate polygraph tests are.
27 October, 2020
Credit: standret via Adobe Stock
- In a 2002 study, 60 percent of people were found to lie at least once during a 10-minute conversation, with most people telling an average of two or three lies. The polygraph, invented in the early 1920s, detects physiological responses to lying (such as elevated heart and respiratory rates as well as spikes in blood pressure.
- Three main areas of the brain are stimulated during deception: the frontal lobe, the limbic system, and the temporal lobe.
- According to the American Polygraph Association, the estimated accuracy of a polygraph can be up to 87 percent.
What happens in your brain when you lie?
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDU5ODY0Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDU4OTUzMX0.GHs9ZTFWtuC8IGBQTLsM4qd2LFriJZFuAn4whFj-GZ0/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C19%2C0%2C101&height=700" id="c3d06" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4747d0e2eb354c19bc9d0749c2d28f26" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="concept of lying polygraph test" />Image by Shidlovski on Shutterstock
<p>We all lie. Some might argue it's human nature. In a 2002 study, 60 percent of people were found to lie at least once during a 10-minute conversation, with most people telling an average of two or three lies. Some lies are small, some are bigger, some are done out of kindness, and some done out of malice. But a lie is a lie, and the way that your body reacts when you lie is the same.</p><p><strong>Lying is an inherently stressful activity. </strong></p><p>When you engage in a false narrative (or a lie), your respiratory and heart rate will increase and you may even start to sweat. While people may vary in the ability to tell a lie, most of the time your body will react in this same way. Exceptions to this rule are, for example, psychopaths, who lack empathy and therefore do not exhibit the typical physiological stress responses when telling a lie. </p><p><strong>Brain imaging studies have shown what really happens in the brain when you tell a lie. </strong></p><p>Lying generally involves more effort than telling the truth, and because of this, it involves the prefrontal cortex. <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-art-of-lying/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A 2001 study</a> by late neuroscientist Sean Spence (University of Sheffield in England) explored fMRI images of the brain while lying. Participants answered questions about their daily routine by pressing a yes or no button on a screen. Depending on the color of the writing, they were to answer either truthfully or with a lie. </p><p>The results showed participants needed more time to formulate a dishonest answer than an honest one, and certain parts of the prefrontal cortex were more active when they were lying. </p><p><a href="https://mashable.com/2013/12/20/psychology-of-lying/?europe=true#:~:text=When%20we%20lie%2C%20it%20stimulates,memories%20and%20creating%20mental%20imagery." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Further research</a> explains that three main areas of the brain are stimulated during deception - the frontal lobe works to suppress the truth, the limbic system activates due to the anxiety that comes from lying, and the temporal lobe activates in response to retrieving memories and creating mental imagery (fabricating a believable lie). </p><p><strong>Research also suggests lying becomes easier the more you do it. </strong></p><p><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27775721/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In a 2016 study</a>, Duke psychologist Dan Ariely and his colleagues showed how dishonesty can alter your brain, making it easier to tell lies in the future. When people told lies, the scientists noticed a burst of activity in the amygdala, the part of the brain involved in fear, anxiety, and emotional responses. When the scientists had their subject play a game in which they won money by deceiving their partner, they noticed the negative signals from the amygdala begin to decrease. </p><p>"Lying, in fact, desensitized your brain to the fear of getting caught of hurting others, making lying for your own benefit down the road much easier," wrote Jessica Stillman for <a href="https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/the-science-of-lying-more-you-do-it-easier-it-gets.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">INC</a>.</p>How do lie detectors work?
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDU5ODY3MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNzg5MDU0OX0._xLKh6Lu15CNNf0eoLNROD6XGuqiT2R8pKxq0TECV2A/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C193%2C0%2C1994&height=700" id="db217" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="092c4388f3cea4afb66387c522754519" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="lie detector illustration" />The polygraph will be able to detect if someone is telling the truth 87 percent of the time.
Image by OllivsArt on Shutterstock
<p>In 1921, a California-based police officer and physiologist John A. Larson created an apparatus that simultaneously measures continuous changes in blood pressure, heart rate, and respiration rate to aid in the detection of deception. This was the invention of the polygraph, which is commonly referred to as a lie detector.</p><p>Seven years before this, in 1914, an Italian psychologist (Vittorio Benussi) published findings on "the respiratory symptoms of a lie," and in 1915, an American psychologist and lawyer (William M. Marston) invented a blood pressure test for the detection of deception.</p><p>The accuracy of polygraph tests has been called into question for nearly as long as they've existed. These machines detect typical stress responses to telling a lie. This means increased heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration rate. Some people are naturally good liars, or become better with controlling these stress responses, and can manage to stay calm during a lie detector test. </p><p><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-nature-deception/202001/do-lie-detector-tests-really-work#:~:text=It%20does%20work%20much%20of,trained%20polygraph%20examiner%20can%20tell.&text=They%20estimate%20the%20accuracy%20of,lying%20or%20telling%20the%20truth" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According to the American Polygraph Association</a> (made up largely of polygraph examiners), the estimated accuracy of a polygraph can be up to 87 percent. That means that in 87 out of 100 cases, the polygraph will be able to detect if someone is telling the truth.</p><p>If the person lies but doesn't have the stress symptoms of telling that lie, they will pass the test. Similarly, innocent people may fail the test due to being anxious about taking it to begin with and therefore emitting the elevated heart, respiratory, and blood pressure rates that can be detected. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
How we make moral decisions
In some situations, asking "what if everyone did that?" is a common strategy for judging whether an action is right or wrong.
14 October, 2020
Photo by Chinh Le Duc on Unsplash
Imagine that one day you're riding the train and decide to hop the turnstile to avoid paying the fare.
<p> It probably won't have a big impact on the financial well-being of your local transportation system. But now ask yourself, "What if everyone did that?" The outcome is much different — the system would likely go bankrupt and no one would be able to ride the train anymore.</p><p>Moral philosophers have long believed this type of reasoning, known as universalization, is the best way to make moral decisions. But do ordinary people spontaneously use this kind of moral judgment in their everyday lives?</p><p>In a study of several hundred people, MIT and Harvard University researchers have confirmed that people do use this strategy in particular situations called "threshold problems." These are social dilemmas in which harm can occur if everyone, or a large number of people, performs a certain action. The authors devised a mathematical model that quantitatively predicts the judgments they are likely to make. They also showed, for the first time, that children as young as 4 years old can use this type of reasoning to judge right and wrong.</p><p>"This mechanism seems to be a way that we spontaneously can figure out what are the kinds of actions that I can do that are sustainable in my community," says Sydney Levine, a postdoc at MIT and Harvard and the lead author of the study.</p><p>Other authors of the study are Max Kleiman-Weiner, a postdoc at MIT and Harvard; Laura Schulz, an MIT professor of cognitive science; Joshua Tenenbaum, a professor of computational cognitive science at MIT and a member of MIT's Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines and Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL); and Fiery Cushman, an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard. The paper is appearing this week in the <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em>.</p>
<h3>Judging morality</h3><p>The concept of universalization has been included in philosophical theories since at least the 1700s. Universalization is one of several strategies that philosophers believe people use to make moral judgments, along with outcome-based reasoning and rule-based reasoning. However, there have been few psychological studies of universalization, and many questions remain regarding how often this strategy is used, and under what circumstances.</p><p>To explore those questions, the MIT/Harvard team asked participants in their study to evaluate the morality of actions taken in situations where harm could occur if too many people perform the action. In one hypothetical scenario, John, a fisherman, is trying to decide whether to start using a new, more efficient fishing hook that will allow him to catch more fish. However, if every fisherman in his village decided to use the new hook, there would soon be no fish left in the lake.</p><p>The researchers found that many subjects did use universalization to evaluate John's actions, and that their judgments depended on a variety of factors, including the number of people who were interested in using the new hook and the number of people using it that would trigger a harmful outcome.</p><p>To tease out the impact of those factors, the researchers created several versions of the scenario. In one, no one else in the village was interested in using the new hook, and in that scenario, most participants deemed it acceptable for John to use it. However, if others in the village were interested but chose not to use it, then John's decision to use it was judged to be morally wrong.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that they could use their data to create a mathematical model that explains how people take different factors into account, such as the number of people who want to do the action and the number of people doing it that would cause harm. The model accurately predicts how people's judgments change when these factors change.</p><p>In their last set of studies, the researchers created scenarios that they used to test judgments made by children between the ages of 4 and 11. One story featured a child who wanted to take a rock from a path in a park for his rock collection. Children were asked to judge if that was OK, under two different circumstances: In one, only one child wanted a rock, and in the other, many other children also wanted to take rocks for their collections.</p><p>The researchers found that most of the children deemed it wrong to take a rock if everyone wanted to, but permissible if there was only one child who wanted to do it. However, the children were not able to specifically explain why they had made those judgments.</p><p>"What's interesting about this is we discovered that if you set up this carefully controlled contrast, the kids seem to be using this computation, even though they can't articulate it," Levine says. "They can't introspect on their cognition and know what they're doing and why, but they seem to be deploying the mechanism anyway."</p><p>In future studies, the researchers hope to explore how and when the ability to use this type of reasoning develops in children.</p>
<h3>Collective action</h3><p>In the real world, there are many instances where universalization could be a good strategy for making decisions, but it's not necessary because rules are already in place governing those situations.</p><p>"There are a lot of collective action problems in our world that can be solved with universalization, but they're already solved with governmental regulation," Levine says. "We don't rely on people to have to do that kind of reasoning, we just make it illegal to ride the bus without paying."</p><p>However, universalization can still be useful in situations that arise suddenly, before any government regulations or guidelines have been put in place. For example, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, before many local governments began requiring masks in public places, people contemplating wearing masks might have asked themselves what would happen if everyone decided not to wear one.</p><p>The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don't seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change. One possible explanation is that people don't have enough information about the potential harm that can result from certain actions, Levine says.</p><p>The research was funded by the John Templeton Foundation, the Templeton World Charity Foundation, and the Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines.</p><p><span></span>Reprinted with permission of <a href="http://news.mit.edu/" target="_blank">MIT News</a>. Read the <a href="https://news.mit.edu/2020/moral-decisions-universalization-1002" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
How does your brain make split second decisions?
Researchers explore the "complex web of connections" in your brain that allows you to make split second decisions.
13 October, 2020
Credit: encierro on Adobe Stock
- Researchers at the University of Colorado discovered the cerebellum's role in split-second decision making.
- While it was previously thought that the cerebellum was in charge of these decisions, it's been uncovered that it is more like a "complex web of connections" through the brain that goes into how you make choices.
- If the decision is made within 100 milliseconds (of being presented with the choice), the change of mind will succeed in altering the original course of action.
<p>You are driving down the highway listening to music and thinking about a beach vacation in Hawaii when you realize your exit is sooner than you thought. Do you quickly change lanes to try to make your turn or do you keep going and take the next exit? </p><p>This is a split decision. <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200831165704.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Researchers at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus</a> wanted to explore how the brain makes these quick "go---no go" decisions. Previous research on this same topic is discussed in <a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320308#Stop-signal-task" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">this article of Medical News Today</a>.</p><p>"We wanted to know how this kind of decision making takes place," said the study's senior author Diego Restrepo, Ph.D., professor of cell and developmental biology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.</p><ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0a8108d98cee567d7f7d41ce9befe5fd"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wyoU0y8UG1k?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>While it was previously thought that the cerebellum was in charge of these decisions, it's been uncovered that it is more like a "complex web of connections" through the brain that goes into how you make a quick decision or choice.</p><p>Susan Courtney, a professor of psychological and brain sciences, <a href="https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(17)31063-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627317310632%3Fshowall%3Dtrue" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">found in her 2017 study</a> that these quick decisions involve extremely fast coordination between an area of the premotor cortex and two areas in the prefrontal cortex.</p><p>Restrepo's team looked at the cerebellum's molecular layer interneurons (MLIs). In a Pavlovian twist, mice were rewarded with sugary water after smelling a "rewarded odorant." When an "unrewarded odorant" was released into the air, they were taught to avoid licking the spout. If they took a lick, they were sent to mouse timeout. After a few rounds, the mice learned the trick: lick to this smell, scurry away at that smell. Then Restrepo messed with their brains by throwing in chemogenetic agents that threw off their olfactory sense.</p><p>The cerebellum, or "little brain," sits just above the brainstem. Traditionally, it is responsible for the coordination of voluntary movements as well as motor functions like balance, posture, and coordination. It has also been linked to emotional control, such as in our fear and pleasure responses, and is associated with non-motor conditions such as autism spectrum disorders.</p><p>Research on cerebellum damage results in a variety of issues, including difficulty with balancing, errors in the force and speed of movement, gait impairment, and even decreased muscle tone. As the cerebellum changes with age, it's especially important to exercise in order to keep that region functioning optimally for as long as possible.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDUxODEwOS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNzIyOTA5M30.zs1j6KNLNjiLVnmUz1SE2TzBFQ9keAqvLpSWQU67JyQ/img.png?width=980" id="a6c9b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f264c533599e44ca15b6d07cbabb64f8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Photo: StunningArt / Shutterstock
<p>This understanding of the cerebellum's role in decision-making is new. Because the mice became less confident in their choices after the release of those agents, it appears the cerebellum is partly responsible for quick decision-making responses.</p><p>Restrepo notes that the cerebellum is responsible for a lot of learning—perhaps unsurprisingly, given its proximity to the spinal cord and its influence on motor patterns. Split-second decisions are an old evolutionary necessity and would have started evolving quite early on. As he <a href="https://news.cuanschutz.edu/news-stories/cu-anschutz-researchers-shed-light-on-split-second-decision-making" target="_blank">says</a>,</p><p>"We found an entire subset of brain cells that change after learning. It sheds further light on how the cerebellum functions and the complex web of connections that go into quick decision making."</p><p><strong>How long does it take to make a split decision and have good results?</strong></p><p>The researchers in Susan Courtney's study highlighted that timing is everything when it comes to these quick decisions. If the decision to change is made within 100 milliseconds (of being presented with the choice), the change of mind will succeed in altering the original course of action. However, if it takes at least (or more than) 200 milliseconds, the chances of the change succeeding are significantly less.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Here's why narcissists become leaders, according to two psychologists
Psychologists W. Keith Campbell, (Ph.D.) and Carolyn Crist explain why narcissists rise to power and how to make sure your support is going to someone making effective, positive change.
08 October, 2020
Credit: Wedding and lifestyle on Shutterstock
- Pathological narcissism is rare. It impacts an estimated 1 percent of the population.
- Narcissism is tied closely to leadership emergence, as narcissists tend to initially be confident, charismatic, and charming. Leadership is a natural goal for narcissists because it feeds their motivational goals of status, power, and attention.
- Psychologists W. Keith Campbell, (Ph.D.) and Carolyn Crist explain why narcissists rise to power.
<p>The term narcissist is commonly used to refer to people who appear to be arrogant or entitled. It's easy to refer to someone who talks a lot about themselves or their accomplishments as a narcissist, but what does the word really mean? </p><p>Narcissism is viewed on a spectrum. The trait itself is normally characterized by people scoring near the middle of the spectrum and a few rare individuals at either end. </p><p><strong>How do you score narcissism? </strong></p><p>The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (referred to by physicians as the NPI) was developed by Robert Raskin and Calvin S. Hall in 1979. Scores on this scale range from 0-40, with the average tending to fall in the low-mid teens, <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/narcissism" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">according to Psychology Today</a>. </p><p><strong>The difference between pathological narcissism and narcissism is important. </strong></p><p>Pathological narcissism (which is actually a personality disorder referred to as narcissistic personality disorder) is rare. It impacts an estimated 1 percent of the population. It is a <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mental condition</a> in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention/admiration, troubled relationships (because of this), and an astounding lack of empathy for others. </p><p>This disorder is suspected when a person's narcissistic traits (listed above) begin to impair their daily functions.</p>
Why do narcissists become leaders?
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9b57f7dfe6d697143730e52d749988c5"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KzoH3xox-G0?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>"Leadership is a natural goal for narcissists because it feeds their motivational goals of status, power, and attention." - <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/new-science-narcissism/202010/how-narcissism-and-leadership-go-hand-in-hand" target="_blank">Psychology Today</a></p><p>Leadership can be a complex topic to discuss, as the psychology of leadership can be classified in two distinct ways: leadership emergence (the rise to power) and leadership effectiveness (what happens once the person has power). </p><p><strong>Narcissists initially appear charming and confident, making them great for leadership emergence.</strong></p><p>Narcissism is tied closely to leadership emergence, as narcissists tend to initially be confident, charismatic, and charming (then later perceived as vain or arrogant). However, narcissism may not be great for effective leadership. Once someone rises to power and gains trust, it doesn't always mean they are going to be effective at being a leader to those people. </p><p><strong>Many positions are self-elected, and narcissists will jump at this chance. </strong></p><p>Education, politics, and businesses are typically set up to allow potential leaders to self-elect and move forward with their own goals. Even when leaders are selected by committees or groups, they may be more inclined to go with a high-visibility, confident, high-profile candidate over someone who exudes leadership qualities in a more muted way. </p><p><strong>Many systems favor loud, narcissistic individuals over quiet, effective leaders.</strong></p><p>"Sometimes it feels like our systems are set up to select these narcissistic individuals," explain W. Keith Campbell, (Ph.D.) and Carolyn Crist in <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/new-science-narcissism/202010/how-narcissism-and-leadership-go-hand-in-hand" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Psychology Today</a>. "The democratic election process can also feel like a popularity contest, where the biggest ego wins. Even this year, candidates have created polarized followings on social media."</p><p><strong>People desire a leader who promises stability and direction during challenging times.</strong></p><p>Narcissists who come to power during chaotic and difficult times often quickly gain the support of their followers because they make promises of stability and have a clear direction in mind. The problem with this is that it can lead to detrimental leaders, such as Adolf Hitler. Hitler rose to power during a time when Germany's economy was struggling to recover after the First World War, promising to rebuild and strengthen the country.</p><p><strong>Narcissistic leaders may be able to temporarily convince you everything is being handled effectively. </strong></p><p>Followers who believe their leader acts in their best interest are more likely to be happy with that leadership. When you have a leader who is repeating over and over that they are making effective, meaningful, positive changes (even if they aren't), people are more inclined to believe it. </p><p>"We've seen this over the years at many levels of the government—from the presidential suite all the way down to the local mayor's office," explains Campbell and Crist.</p><p><strong>How do we avoid electing and supporting narcissistic, ineffective leaders in the future? </strong></p><p>Campbell and Crist have a few ideas about that in their book "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/New-Science-Narcissism-Understanding-Psychological/dp/1683644026" target="_blank">The New Science of Narcissism</a>" - the main takeaway being this: <em>"Our best bet is to watch how they act and treat others and then respond accordingly when they look for the next position of power."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
