The Psychology Behind \"Nice Guys Finish Last\" | Keith Campbell | EP 480

Narcissism might give you short-term wins, but it's a fast track to long-term misery and broken relationships.

Just to take it in a little bit of a Freudian direction, it seems you can think about narcissism in terms of Freud's developmental model. Narcissism is like being stuck in the phallic stage a little bit. Using this model as an adult, you might appear as a bit of a cartoon, like a cartoon child acting like an adult.

Hello everybody, today I had the privilege of speaking with Dr. Keith Campbell, who is a professor of psychology at the University of Georgia. Keith is a social psychologist, which means he is interested in the relationship between social networks, social behavior, and individual being. He works at the nexus of social psychology, personality psychology, which is more centered on the individual person, and psychopathology, which is the study of pathological, abnormal, or otherwise counterproductive and painful behavior.

His research focuses more specifically on narcissism, which is part of a broader cluster of personality pathologies that are counterproductive regarding someone's success over long spans of time and in social circumstances. If you're self-centered and narcissistic, and it's all about you, the problem is that this is a good pathway to misery over any reasonable amount of time, despite some small punctuated victories. It is also extremely hard on the stability of your social relationships because the only people who want to be around a manipulative narcissist for any length of time are disenchanted and demoralized masochists, which is not the basis for a productive and meaningful relationship.

This narrow self-centeredness, which is also hedonistic and whim-focused, requiring immediate gratification of needs and wants, is a very counterproductive way of conducting yourself over any reasonable span of time. I was interested in talking to Dr. Campbell partly because I've talked to some of his compatriots who have been working on narcissism, but I'm also interested in the issue more broadly. I think we have seen something of an epidemic of dark personality trait narcissism due to the explosion of social media, which enables anonymity. This anonymity allows people to get away with things that grab attention in the short run but are socially counterproductive and counterproductive in relation to the future.

I wanted to talk to Dr. Campbell about narcissism, his work on narcissism, how it's conceptualized, best understood, detected, and its relationship with leadership, status, self-esteem, broader personality, and the general social world. Dr. Campbell is the author of 200 scientific papers, which is about the equivalent of 60 or 70 PhD theses, and several books, including "The New Science of Narcissism" and "Professor Ocean from the Big Five: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism."

Dr. Campbell, we might as well start by allowing you to introduce yourself to everybody and tell people what you do, what your specialty is, and where you're working, just to give them a general introduction.

Sure, my name's Keith Campbell. I'm a professor of psychology at the University of Georgia here in Athens, Georgia. My training and background are in social personality psychology. My expertise is primarily on the self, the nature of self, and self-enhancement. In terms of personality, most of my work has been on the trait of narcissism, which is the individual difference having to do with self-enhancement.

Maybe tell people, when I worked in Boston, I was in the personality and psychopathology research group, which is slightly different. That was the overlap between personality psychology and clinical psychology. You're working at the nexus between personality psychology and social psychology. These are rather academic distinctions, so maybe one of the things you could do is let everybody know what it means fundamentally to work in the field of personality and in the field of social psychology, and how those are the same and how they're distinct.

=> 00:05:27

Understanding personality helps us see how individual traits impact social interactions and mental health.

The trait of narcissism, which involves self-enhancement, is an interesting topic to explore. When I worked in Boston, I was part of the personality and psychopathology research group. This group focused on the overlap between personality psychology and clinical psychology. However, my current work is at the nexus between personality psychology and social psychology. These are rather academic distinctions, so it might be helpful to explain what it fundamentally means to work in these fields and how they are both similar and distinct.

From a social psychological perspective, when I am interested in a topic like the self, I focus on aspects such as self-regulation, public self-enhancement, status-seeking, and relationships—essentially, a lot of social processes. In contrast, when thinking about personality, I tend to focus more on individual differences, such as how some people are more extroverted or have different structures on the Big Five personality traits compared to others. These are more like personality traits.

This work integrates with psychopathology. For instance, I often collaborate with my friend Josh Miller, a clinician, to integrate social personality findings into the personality psychopathology literature. This helps us understand how normal personality traits manifest as clinical personality disorders. I believe that studying normal personality is very useful for understanding disordered personality as well. There is no magic threshold that one crosses to become a different person with a disorder.

For those watching and listening, there are different ways of analyzing people. You can analyze people biologically, focusing on the micro-mechanisms of physiological function, or you can look at the person as a whole, which is what personality psychologists do. The unit of analysis for personality psychologists is the individual as a whole. As Dr. Campbell pointed out, personality psychologists have done a good job of differentiating personality into its basic categories and traits. The Big Five theorists have probably done the best job with traits like extroversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.

As a social psychologist, you start to veer into the territory of sociology, examining the human being as a social organism. This involves looking at how we interact with others, as we are highly social creatures, and what it means for our behaviors, thoughts, emotions, and perceptions to exist in a social milieu. Working at the intersection between Personality and Social Psychology, there are also questions about normal versus abnormal behavior or healthy versus unhealthy behavior, which delves into the realm of psychopathology.

Psychopathology can be described at the personality level, where someone with a psychopathological personality might be working at cross-purposes to themselves, experiencing too much negative emotion and not enough positive emotion, leading to anxiety and hopelessness. However, from a social perspective, there are individuals like narcissists who might be perfectly happy emotionally in the short term—they are not anxious, suffering, or guilt-ridden, and may even be enthusiastic—but are regarded by others as a veritable plague.

In summary, focusing on individual traits like self-enhancement or attention-seeking might seem beneficial for the individual. However, when integrated into a relationship or team setting, these traits can backfire. For example, attention-seeking might be great for an individual, but if one is working on a team and continues to seek attention, it can be detrimental to the team's dynamics.

=> 00:09:23

Self-enhancement may boost individual happiness, but it can destroy relationships and team dynamics.

From an emotional perspective, some individuals may be perfectly happy—they're not anxious, they're not suffering, and they're not guilt-ridden. They may even be enthusiastic. However, everybody else regards them as a veritable plague. So, we've sketched out the territory. I don't know if you have anything to add from a definitional perspective.

"No, I think you've hit the nail on the head," the response begins. "What's really interesting is a lot of things when you focus on the individual, like self-enhancement or showing off or taking credit for things, those things that seem beneficial when you start integrating into a relationship can backfire on you. For instance, if I'm attention-seeking, it might be great as an individual, but if I'm working on a team and I'm attention-seeking, my team members will hate me and my team performance will fall apart. So, when we move into that social world, a lot of the rules change. I think that's really important."

Clinically, what's really important is the role of impairment. Is your personality causing impairment? Most of us think about impairment as being internal psychological issues like depression or anxiety. However, it can also manifest in ways that hurt other people and not necessarily oneself, such as cheating on a spouse or being a bad parent.

Since joining forces with DailyWire Plus two years ago, we've built a comprehensive collection of premium content. We've developed these shows not only to provide you with a structure and framework for meaning but to arm you against the sadistic troll demons. My collection, titled Mastering Life with Jordan B. Peterson, acts as a guide to help you win at the series of games that make up life. My series on marriage was designed to help you strengthen your relationship so that you can create the perfect date that repeats endlessly. In the series on masculinity, Dragons, Monsters, and Men, I outline a way of discovering your purpose by slaying the dragons that stand in your path, envisioning a destiny that will help you transform the chaotic potential of the future into the actuality that you need and desire.

This fall, we're adding even more exclusive content to my Mastering Life series. My new series on negotiation offers practical guidelines to help you close a deal where both sides walk away with a win. We're also offering a three-part series on success, strengthening your family, and strengthening your relationships to aim up and avoid deteriorating into idiotic hedonism. Two of the top things people are struggling with are depression and anxiety. We walk through that at the practical level and then right down to the neuroscientific level in my five-part series Depression and Anxiety.

In addition to our Mastering Life series, we've explored biblical writings and their cultural influence, including a deep evaluation of the books of Genesis and Exodus and how the biblical corpus itself came into existence. Our new 10-part series on the Gospels delineates the accounts of the New Testament writings. Finally, join me on a journey through time to find out where we came from, how that formed who we are, and what we believe in Foundations of the West. The first episode is out now on DailyWire Plus. The Rome, Jerusalem, Athens five-part series was a blast to make, and I hope you find it extremely useful to watch.

For those of you who have already subscribed, thank you very much. Stay tuned; we're releasing new content every week through the end of the year. For those of you who have yet to sign up, use promo code Jordan and save 35% on your annual membership. It's a hell of a deal. Visit dailywire.com to get the entire collection of Mastering Life plus all the new releases that are to come. The work I'm doing in conjunction with the Daily Wire brings the spirit of adventure forward. Join us on DailyWire Plus today. Onward and upward.

Right, well, you're touching on something approximating an objective definition of health or its opposite, psychopathology. What you're implying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's easy to assume our notions of psychopathology—psychological disorder or ill health—are only cultural constructs. However, you've touched on something that disproves that quite radically. Let me walk through that a bit, and tell me what you think about it. So, I could look at the world or think about the world in a manner that optimizes my emotional functioning for the moment, and that would be satisfying and rewarding for me in the moment. But it could be that I'm regulating my emotions in a...

=> 00:13:31

True health isn't just about feeling good now; it's about making choices today that won't harm your future well-being or relationships.

The conversation touches on the concept of objective definitions of health and psychopathology. It challenges the assumption that our notions of psychological disorders or ill health are merely cultural constructs. The argument presented suggests that there are more concrete criteria that can be used to define these concepts.

One way to approach this is by considering how one optimizes emotional functioning. For instance, an individual might regulate their emotions in a way that is satisfying in the moment but detrimental to their future emotional regulation. To be a functional person, one must act in the present without compromising their future well-being. This idea can be likened to the constraints of an iterating game, where one must play in a manner that sustains their actions and existence over time.

Similarly, this principle applies socially. Regulating emotions at the expense of others, such as family members or the broader community, is not sustainable. To be functional as a social creature, one must not regulate emotions in a way that harms others. This sets up an objective or transpersonal criterion for conceptualizing normal or healthy personality versus abnormal or unhealthy personality. It is not merely a matter of subjective judgment but involves being the sort of person that others want to be around.

The conversation then delves into the importance of status, reputation, and responsibility. It is crucial for individuals to be well-situated in a social hierarchy, having friends, loved ones, colleagues, and competitors. Our serotonin systems, which regulate emotions, are sensitive to our position in this hierarchy. However, this is more about reputation than status. For example, children who learn to regulate their emotions, take turns, and share are likely to make friends and build a good reputation, situating them well in their social community. The same applies to adults, who can enhance their reputation by being competent and fair players.

However, the reputation game can degenerate into a power game, where individuals manipulate their position through dominance and false claims of competence. Despite this, the reputation game itself is not inherently a power game. The conversation seeks to establish whether this framework is a good definitional ground for further discussion.

The challenge we face as individuals is the uncertainty of our lifespan. Do we regulate for short-term gratification or play the long-term game? Most people aim for the long term. For example, if one regulates emotions for the short term by getting mad and screaming at someone or seeking immediate attention, it can be detrimental in the long run.

=> 00:17:38

Playing the long game in life and relationships beats short-term emotional fixes every time.

That doesn't mean that the reputation game is a power game. Well, that's at least one way of looking at it. I'm kind of curious if you feel that’s a good definitional ground for our conversation to continue. If you've got things to say about that, for sure, there’s a lot to unpack there.

First off, the challenge we have as people is we don't know if we're going to live 50 minutes or 50 years. So, do you regulate for just having a good time today, or do you try to play the long-term game? Most of us are trying to play for the long term. If you regulate your emotions for the short term—for example, get mad at somebody and scream at them or bully them, or if you want attention and go claim it—it's going to feel good in the short term. However, in the long term, it will ruin your relationships, leading to a long-term cost. We are wired, at least in social psychology, to regulate emotion before other things. If I feel bad, the tendency is to make that bad feeling go away—I'll have a drink, binge eat, or watch TV—rather than solve the fundamental problem causing the bad feeling.

The second thing is the difference between reputation and status or dominance, which is really important. You can gain a reputation by being a showy big deal, following the narcissistic model or the celebrity model, or you can be a good person over a long period. In the leadership world, this is like dominance versus prestige. People either admire you and want to make you a leader, or you dominate them. In the status world, there are two paths: being a good person and being lifted up by others, or fighting your way to the top with sharp elbows, controlling the media and the message. There is a lot of conflict in this human experience about this.

I interviewed Frans de Waal before he passed away in an untimely and unfortunate manner. I was struck by his work on chimpanzees in relation to the kinds of things we’re discussing. The classic view among evolutionary biologists and psychologists is that hierarchies exist because of limited access to resources, and people sort themselves out so that some get preferential access. A functional hierarchy is one where the more able people get preferential access, which is good for everyone. The classic view is that the more dominant, socially successful male tends to be more dominant, construed as a power game.

However, De Waal showed that even among chimpanzees, the dominance route was a suboptimal solution. It seemed better than being weak and useless, but if you had to choose between being strong, mean, and dominant, it would be better from an evolutionary and personal perspective. Yet, if you could serve a more sophisticated role, De Waal pointed out that stable alpha chimps often played the role of peacemaker and reliable friend. The alphas that De Waal studied had more functional troops, and their rule was more stable and less violent if they didn’t use dominance. This finding is of unbelievable importance because it’s crucial to understand these two pathways to both reproductive and personal success. The dominance route is simpler and more attractive on the surface, which is why narcissists and psychopaths have a niche.

A narcissist, as far as I'm concerned, is someone who manipulates to achieve unearned reputational status. This needs to be fleshed out, but it seems to be at the core. Once you establish a functional social hierarchy, the higher you are, the more resources accrue to you.

=> 00:21:55

Narcissists manipulate for unearned status, but true success comes from genuine competence and collaboration.

Understanding these two pathways to both reproductive and personal success, the dominance route is simpler and more attractive at a surface level. This is partly why narcissists and psychopaths have a niche. A narcissist, fundamentally, is someone who manipulates to achieve unearned reputational status. This needs to be fleshed out, but it seems to be at the core of it. Once a social hierarchy is established and functional, the higher you are in the hierarchy, the more resources accrue to you. For men, in particular, this also involves reproductive success because the best predictor of mate access for men is relative position in a hierarchy. You can mimic that as a narcissist by displaying a confidence that would normally be associated with competence. It's real enough to fool people, especially naive young women, and allows you to maneuver into high-resource positions.

Narcissism involves not just unearned status but also a need for attention and admiration, even among those who are genuinely successful and competent. For example, Bill Clinton and President Trump, regardless of political affiliation, exhibit this need for attention despite their achievements. This shows that narcissism isn't only about unearned status but also about wanting more attention than deserved, leading to an inflation component.

The concept of an alpha is also intriguing. Observations in nature, such as a gazelle alpha in South Africa, show that the alpha spends his life mate-guarding and only lasts about a season due to high cortisol levels. In human societies, this translates to a reverse hierarchy where younger individuals may band together to overthrow an alpha, leading to an unstable system. Aligning the alpha with the group and becoming a peacemaker can result in a more stable society. Hence, being an alpha is hard and often not a long-term strategy.

In gang dynamics, the more narcissistic, aggressive, manipulative, and psychopathic individuals can rise quickly but tend to have extremely short lifespans. They adopt a truncated temporal view, focusing on immediate gains, which can be understandable if the alternative is never getting what they want and dying quickly. However, this is not a good solution compared to being successful and productive over decades and serving others.

This discussion strikes at the core of cultural critique, highlighting the complexities of dominance, narcissism, and societal structures.

=> 00:26:03

Narcissistic leaders may rise quickly but their instability and unethical behavior lead to their downfall.

Manipulative psychopathic types who are prone to violence can rise, but their lifespan tends to be extremely short. They adopt an attitude towards the world associated with a truncated temporal view, which is, "I'm going to get every goddamn thing I can get my hands on right now." You can understand the attractiveness of that if the alternative is, "I never get anything I want and I also die quickly." However, it's not a very good solution when you could be successful and productive, spanning decades and also being of service to other people.

This discussion strikes to the core of cultural critique as well. Throughout human history, but amplified intellectually since the time of Marx, there has been an insistence that male sociological structures are oppressive patriarchies. We need to take that apart because, at a more sophisticated level, if the male hierarchy deteriorates in the direction of narcissistic power, it becomes an oppressive patriarchy. However, if it's bounded by the necessity of productive, iterable interactions, then there's nothing about the patriarchy that's oppressive at all. If it's oppressive, it means that it's not structured optimally either for the people in positions of authority and responsibility or for anybody else. The crucial issue here is that it's certainly possible to structure hierarchies of responsibility so that they're not narcissistic and dominance-based.

Narcissistic leaders, when they get in power, are generally unstable people. They get one group of people who love them and another group who don't like them. They tend to be less ethical and tend to get taken out; it just takes some time for it to happen. So, it's not a stable system and can become toxic. However, a healthy, holistic group of men can work together if they're not doing a bunch of ego stuff and are focused on goals. For example, if a group of men were tasked with fighting a monster, they would align towards that goal and work together effectively.

Every year, over 800,000 innocent lives are lost to abortion in America. The Biden-Harris administration's policies don't just permit the ending of unborn lives; they actively punish those who protect life with penalties of up to 10 years in jail. But there's a way to fight back. In a world where the sanctity of life is under assault, Pre-born network of clinics stands as a beacon of hope. Operating in areas with the highest abortion rates, they offer a lifeline to mothers facing unplanned pregnancies. Their approach is simple yet powerful: introduce a woman to her baby through an ultrasound and surround her with compassion.

Here's where you come in. Your support can make a tangible difference. For just $28, you can fund one ultrasound, doubling the chance of that precious life being saved. This isn't just about statistics; it's about giving every life a fighting chance and standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves. Ready to make a difference? Your tax-deductible gift could be the turning point in a mother's decision and a child's future. Make a donation today by visiting pre-born.com or just dial pound 250 and say the keyword "baby." For just $28, you can help save a life.

Men who aren't immature and who are goal-focused tend to organize themselves in relation to perceived competence while pursuing that goal. A common trope in American movies, which runs contrary to the apparent presuppositions of evolutionary biology, is the story of a quarterback who overcomes the odds, wins the championship game, and is celebrated by his teammates. One of the consequences of this is that he becomes much more radically attractive to the cheerleaders.

=> 00:30:16

Success isn't a solo act; share the glory to win long-term.

Focused individuals tend to organize themselves in relation to perceived competence while pursuing their goals. This concept is often illustrated in American movies, which sometimes appear to contradict the principles of evolutionary biology. For instance, in a typical football team movie, a subplot might feature a quarterback who overcomes the odds, wins the championship game, and is celebrated by being paraded out of the stadium on the shoulders of his teammates. This act of celebration elevates him to the highest position and makes him more attractive to the cheerleaders.

One might question why the other males, who are celebrating him, would seemingly take a reproductive hit by elevating his status. However, the underlying idea is that associating with a highly productive winner brings glory to the entire group. In social psychology, this is known as "basking in reflected glory" or "BIRGing." When a team wins, everyone associated with the team feels a sense of victory and increased status. This phenomenon suggests that being part of a successful group benefits all members, not just the star player.

This concept also highlights why a properly structured patriarchy is not inherently pathological. It allows for a sociological organization around a mutually chosen goal, where the best individual rises to the top. However, it is not a zero-sum game for the rest of the participants. A prime example is seen in hunter-gatherer societies. Even the best hunter in a tribe has a high probability of failing on any given hunt. Therefore, the spoils of successful hunts are distributed among the group, and the best hunter is expected to be humble and generous. This ensures that others are willing to hunt with him, creating a long-term win-win situation.

In sports, particularly football, a similar dynamic is observed. If a quarterback wins and credits only himself, his teammates, especially the offensive line, may not support him as strongly in future games. Conversely, if he shares the glory and acknowledges his teammates' contributions, they are more likely to support him, creating a virtuous cycle of mutual benefit.

This principle is crucial in socialization, especially for young competitive boys. They are taught not to be sore losers and to distribute credit and blame appropriately. Sharing glory with teammates ensures long-term success because most endeavors in life, including science, are team sports. Without a supportive team, individual success is unsustainable.

=> 00:34:18

True leadership means sharing the glory and taking the blame—it's a long-term strategy for success.

Be a whiny loser, you know, and certainly don't distribute blame. If you're going to take credit as a team player, especially if you're a star, take credit for the losses and distribute the glory. You might say, "Well, that seems counterproductive because why shouldn't all the glory go to me?" The answer is, do you want to be glorious for one game or your whole bloody career? The long-term strategy is to share the glory with everybody else out there so they help you win because most things in life are a team sport. Science is a team sport; most things are team sports. You can't do it on your own. If you don't have a good team, they're going to drop you, stab you in the back, or frag you, or whatever the term is.

The game has to iterate across multiple instantiations as well, which is also crucially important. I want to turn the conversation slightly and focus at least in part on fleshing out exactly what narcissism consists of. There are two directions I'd like to take the conversation. First, we talked a little bit about leadership. The thing about leadership that's a paradox, and this also pertains to female mate selection, is that you often want someone in a leadership position who has personality traits that might tilt towards narcissism. An extroverted person is going to be charismatic, able to communicate, and want to work in groups. A disagreeable person is going to be competitive and victory-focused. However, a disagreeable extrovert is going to tilt towards narcissism.

This is a problem for occupations like media, entertainment, or politics because it attracts a disproportionate number of extroverted, disagreeable extroverts. It seems to me that one of the mediating personality factors there is probably trait conscientiousness. If you have an extroverted guy who's competitive and disagreeable, that would define Trump, for example. If he's someone who can commit, keep his word, and stay focused on long-term goals, that should take the truly pathological edge off the narcissism. My sense of the literature at the nexus of personality, social, and clinical is that the psychopathic types look to be extroverted, disagreeable types who are extremely low in conscientiousness.

They're like impulsive narcissists. I think of the two as cousins. If you're a disagreeable extrovert, it captures that profile really well. In academia, you've got to be kind of antagonistic if you're going to argue with people. If you're too agreeable, it's hard to do it. But if you have conscientiousness, morals, long-term goals, duties, and responsibilities, you're going to be a decent person. If you're impulsive and just doing what you want, you're going to be more psychopathic, self-centered, and selfish. When you look at the personality profile, Big Five profile of psychopathy versus narcissism, the big distinction is the lower conscientiousness with psychopathy.

We could also think about that with regards to socialization. I worked with a research team in Montreal, a very good team. One of the things we established when we were looking at the developmental course of maturation is that a lot of what we see as narcissism is actually something like prolonged immaturity. It's a little more complicated than that. Little kids that we studied, and this is true of those who've studied little kids in general, show that about 5% of males at the age of two hit, kick, bite, and steal when you put them with other two-year-olds. They're almost all male, and there's only one in 20. Most two-year-olds aren't psychopathic narcissists by temperament. These are probably the boys who are disagreeable extroverts by temperament. They're competitive, pushy, and impulsive when they're very young. Most of them are socialized by the age of four. Our studies of long-term criminality indicated that it was the minority of...

=> 00:38:33

Narcissism is prolonged immaturity masquerading as confidence.

Prolonged immaturity is a complex issue. Studies on young children, particularly boys, reveal that about 5% of males at the age of two exhibit behaviors such as hitting, kicking, biting, and stealing when placed with other two-year-olds. These behaviors are almost exclusively observed in males, indicating that most two-year-olds are not psychopathic narcissists by temperament. These boys are likely disagreeable extroverts by temperament—competitive, pushy, and impulsive. However, most of them are socialized by the age of four. Long-term studies on criminality suggest that a minority of this 5% who remain unsocialized by age four tend to become long-term predatory criminals. It becomes challenging to address these behaviors after this age.

This observation leads to the hypothesis that narcissistic predatory parasitism may be a failure of maturation rather than a pathology in itself. It represents the maintenance of self-centered immaturity far beyond its typical expiration date. This idea aligns with a Freudian developmental model where the narcissist is stuck in the phallic stage rather than the oral or anal stages. This type of immaturity is not about dependency but rather an adolescent-like, childish, phallic masculinity—an exaggerated sense of self-importance and entitlement.

This phenomenon can be seen in the rise of figures like Andrew Tate, who embody a certain type of stardom. While there is limited sympathy for such figures, they represent a stage of immaturity that is more attractive than prolonged infantile dependency. From an evolutionary biological perspective, manipulative psychopaths can be successful in finding sexual partners, whereas infantile dependent men are not. Some women may be attracted to narcissistic individuals, but virtually no women are attracted to infantile dependent men. Thus, being narcissistic and full of oneself is better than being a dependent loser, but it is not the highest stage of male development.

=> 00:42:56

It's better to be a bit narcissistic than a dependent loser, but true male development is about being a provider and leader.

From an evolutionary biological perspective, it is evident that manipulative psychopaths can be successful in finding sexual partners, whereas infantile dependent men struggle significantly in this area. Virtually no women are attracted to infantile dependent men, while some women may find narcissistic individuals appealing. This aligns with the understanding of developmental progression. It is better for a man to be narcissistic and full of himself than to be a dependent loser. However, this is not the highest stage of male development. The ultimate goal is to be a provider, to lead a family, and to do more than just display narcissistic traits.

The mention of Andrew Tate highlights how younger men are attracted to the Alpha personality model. This is understandable given the lack of good male role models. Young men see a figure that appears cartoonish but functional, with agency and the ability to navigate life effectively, which appeals to a 15-year-old. Although better role models are desired, this attraction to the Alpha model might be developmentally appropriate at certain stages.

In the analysis of the development of psychopathology, consider the behavior of 13 to 15-year-old males. There are three patterns: those who never break rules, those who always break rules, and those in the middle. Males who never break rules are at higher risk for dependent personality disorder, depression, and anxiety later in life. Conversely, those who always break rules are at higher risk for lifetime criminality, substance abuse, and violence. The middle group, who experiment with rule-breaking, are more balanced. It might be appropriate for rule-oriented kids from good homes to admire rule-breakers to some degree, as this helps them move beyond childhood dependence on their parents. Most men mature out of this phase, with criminality and substance abuse dropping off significantly around the age of 25. This is also when men start to get their act together and move beyond narcissistic traits to take on roles with a longer time span and broader social horizon.

This concept is reminiscent of Jack Block's work on drug use in Berkeley during the 70s, where both extremes—using no drugs and using too much—led to trouble. The golden mean in the middle is where a little edge is present but not too much. Developmentally, it is appropriate for young men to explore the darker side for a while, but they should eventually mature beyond it.

=> 00:47:09

Embrace a bit of edge, but don't lose your moral compass.

Developmentally, it is appropriate for young guys to explore a little darker side for a while. You don't want to be perfectly moral, but you don't want to be immoral either; there's always that little bit of Edge.

Are you tired of feeling sluggish, run down, or just not your best self? Take control of your health and vitality today with Balance of Nature. With Balance of Nature, there's never been a more convenient dietary supplement to ensure you get a wide variety of fruits and vegetables every day. Balance of Nature takes fruits and vegetables, freeze-dries them, turns them into a powder, and then puts them into a capsule. The capsules are completely void of additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides, or added sugar. The only thing in Balance of Nature fruit and veggie capsules are fruits and veggies. Right now, you can order with promo code Jordan to get 35% off your first order plus get a free bottle of fiber and spice. Experience Balance of Nature for yourself today. Go to balanceofnature.com and use promo code Jordan for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer plus get a free bottle of fiber and spice. That's balanceofnature.com, promo code Jordan for 35% off your first preferred order plus a free bottle of fiber and spice.

Exploring boundaries is crucial for development. One of my children, my son, was more disagreeable than my daughter, and he was a pushy little rat. One of the consequences of that was he became extremely socially skilled. He was really good at dancing on the edge; he wanted to push to find out what he could get away with and exactly where the rules were. This is a characteristic of assertive and competitive male behavior. There is a kind of exploratory behavior in that pushiness because if you're passive, you're not going to make those fine distinctions.

It means that boys, especially the more aggressive ones, are much more difficult to socialize. That's why they need a father, for example, and go off the rails so badly if they don't have one. It also may be why it's not a good idea to have an education system that is male-absent entirely, not least because you get the formulation of male gangs. Even that is somewhat of a socialization process. Generally, in male groups, the dependent guys get a rough time. The males will gang up on them and try to shame them into accepting a certain amount of maturation. They also do the same thing to the narcissistic guys. Military organizations, when they're not fascist, are particularly good at that sort of thing, as are sports teams. If you are the showboat, especially if you don't have the requisites, the guys are going to take the edges off you pretty quickly for being such a pain in the neck.

My friend Lenny Martin used to study hunter-gatherers. In these groups, you'd have a guy who was sort of narcissistic, psychopathic, maybe stealing or hooking up with people's partners. They'd take him out hunting, and there'd be a hunting accident, and he wouldn't come back. Or they'd go to the guy's family and say, "Hey, you got to get rid of this guy," and there'd be an accident, and that would be the end of them. They would eliminate people who are psychopathic in these groups. If times were stable, things change, and the psychopaths would do pretty well. But generally, guys don't want guys like that around; they'll take them out if they can if they don't add value.

This brings us to a more complex conversation about narcissistic psychopathy. I've been looking at the developing literature on short-term versus long-term mating strategies in men, particularly in relation to the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution decreased the strictures of sexual behavior and provided functional birth control, making it less risky for women to engage in short-term sexual behavior. In the broad biological community, there are two types of mating patterns: the r strategy and the K strategy.

=> 00:51:01

Short-term mating strategies often lead women to end up with narcissistic and psychopathic partners.

This will lead us into a more complex conversation. I've been looking at the developing literature on short-term versus long-term mating strategies in men. I've been particularly interested in this in relation to the sexual revolution. In principle, what the sexual revolution did with its decrease of strictures on sexual behavior, along with the provision of hypothetically functional birth control, was to make it less risky for women to engage in short-term sexual behavior.

However, a very interesting question arises from this. In the broad biological community, there are two types of mating patterns: the r strategy and the K strategy. The r strategy involves zero investment in offspring, producing a lot of offspring, sometimes millions, but almost all of them die. There's no post-coital investment. On the other side, there are human beings, who have few offspring but very high investment. Within human beings, that same distribution applies.

There's a developing literature identifying the personality traits of short-term maters. The short-term male maters are often dark tetrad types: narcissistic, psychopathic, Machiavellian, and sadistic. This is a very interesting development because it implies that as society tilts towards sexual freedom on the hedonistic side, it seems to deliver women over to these short-term mating males with those dark personality characteristics. This seems like a bad idea.

From the work I've done on narcissism and relationships, which is significant, you find that narcissism predicts short-term mating. Narcissists are more extroverted and thus more attractive. They spend more time grooming, so they look better when mating. They are also willing to cheat on their spouse, even if in a steady relationship. Narcissists tend to seek alternative partners more than other people. All these mechanisms mean that if there's a lot of short-term mating going on, the people doing it are going to be overrepresented by narcissists. On dating apps, you're likely to find the same thing.

This lays out a plausible pathway to addressing the is-ought problem with regards to sexual morality. A serious question arose at the beginning of the 60s, which might be a significant reason for the culture war. With the advent of the pill, women became radically different from those before the pill because they now had voluntary control over their reproductive function. This is a huge deal, meaning the definition of "woman" itself has to be reconsidered.

Does this mean that women can tilt towards the same reproductive strategy that men use? That was essentially the promise of the sexual revolution. However, it appears that the consequence is that women turn themselves over to immature, narcissistic, self-grooming, showy men who can't commit, don't want long-term relationships, and don't make good fathers. They are not likely to stick around, for example.

We might be at the point where psychologists can tell young women that the shorter-term mating strategy they play increases the likelihood of ending up with a psychopathic partner. If you're going for short-term mating, the other people involved are going to be less agreeable, less interested in deep emotional connection, and more interested in their own power and pleasure from sexual conquest. This means you're going to encounter more narcissists and psychopaths. It's just the math of the situation.

=> 00:55:05

Short-term dating often leads to relationships with narcissists and psychopaths, not long-term partners.

Young women seeking long-term relationships often face the challenge of encountering partners who don't make good fathers because they are not very likely to stick around. Psychologists can advise young women that the shorter-term mating strategy they play increases the likelihood of ending up with a psychopathic partner. Those involved in short-term mating are generally less agreeable, less interested in deep emotional connection, and more focused on their own power and pleasure from sexual conquest. This results in attracting more narcissists and psychopaths, which is simply the math of the situation.

Meeting people in different environments, such as bars versus charity picnics, results in encountering different types of individuals. Women face an additional problem: the dependent hyper-obedient losers who are often the nice guys hanging around safe situations. This is also not ideal for them. The psychopathic end is particularly frightening because personality psychologists have identified the dark Triad formulation: narcissistic (wanting unearned social status), Machiavellian (manipulative), and psychopathic (predatory and parasitical). This combination is dangerous, and further investigation revealed that adding sadism (delight in the unnecessary suffering of others) completes the formulation, making it even more terrifying.

Women need to understand that turning themselves over to excitement-seeking, narcissistic, self-centered guys is bad enough, but also turning themselves over to sadists is even worse. These four traits are tightly associated, leading to a spot of positive misery. Therefore, tempering thrill-seeking with the understanding that hanging around psychopathic predatory parasites is not advisable.

Sadism is particularly scary, as seen in old research where people would grind bugs in a coffee grinder, taking pleasure in others' suffering. Women are attracted to men with confidence, ambition, and direction, but often encounter "nice guys" who are actually losers. Selecting ambitious men can result in finding either genuinely nice guys or self-centered, problematic individuals, making it hard to differentiate.

Younger and less experienced women are more likely to fall for the machinations of psychopathic predators because they can't distinguish between competence, confidence, and false confidence. Narcissistic individuals are initially more attractive in the fun stage of relationships, but later prove unsuitable for high-trust, deep emotional connections. Our culture's system is designed to pair people with more narcissistic individuals rather than those suitable for long-term relationships.

A rule of thumb is that almost all losers will attempt to pass off as nice guys. The infantile dependent losers are not ideal partners for women seeking meaningful, long-term relationships.

=> 00:59:12

Narcissists seem fun at first, but they aren't built for deep, trusting relationships.

In relationships, there is a transition from fun and exciting relationships to deep and emotional ones. At the fun stage, people who are narcissistic tend to be more attractive. For instance, if I meet someone who is really narcissistic, I might think, "God, this person's fun, we'll go out drinking, it'll be great." However, later on, when seeking a high-trust relationship, it becomes clear that this is the wrong person. Our whole system is designed to pair people with those who are more narcissistic, rather than those who would be good in the long term.

Additionally, there is another complexity to consider. A rule of thumb is that almost all losers will attempt to pass off as nice guys. This includes the infantile dependent types who claim, "I'm not infantile independent, I'm nice." While some nice guys are competent, all infantile losers, except those who have fallen completely off the edge of the world and are resentful beyond belief, will try to pass themselves off as nice guys. If you're hanging around with predatory psychopaths, even in the initial short-term stages of a relationship, you won't have to contend with the false nice guy problem. No woman in her right mind wants a dependent man, as it is akin to having a child, who at least has an excuse for their dependency. By being attracted to more dominating types, you solve the nice guy problem but end up with the psychopath problem.

This issue is significant because it is tiring to hear guys claim, "I'm a nice guy." The question then arises, "Really? Are you out doing charity work every week? Are you down at the church every week putting together the kids' camp?" If they were, women would likely find them attractive. The reality is that many are just weak.

It would be easy to toss all of your discipline to the side for the summer, but a life of greatness doesn't happen by taking the easy route. The Hallow app offers an incredible range of guided meditations and prayers designed to help deepen your spirituality and strengthen your connection to God. For the third year in a row, Hallow is having their wildly popular Saints in 7 Days prayer challenge, where over the course of four weeks, you'll journey through the life of an incredible saint, learning more about their faith story and ultimate surrender to the will of God in their life. The challenge kicks off on August 5th with Joe Missoula, the coach of the Celtics, and St. Sebastian, the patron saint of athletes. Then, Rio Wahlberg will lead meditations on the life of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, followed by Jonathan Roumie walking through the powerful story of St. Maximilian Kolbe, who sacrificed his own life for another at Auschwitz. The series closes with Father David Michael Moses and Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati. Saints in Seven Days delves deep into the lesser-known parts of a saint's life, showing that while their journeys to sainthood were filled with God's grace and glory, they also included human struggles, great suffering, mistakes, and a profound need for God's mercy. Download the Hallow app today at hallow.com/Jordan for an exclusive 3-month trial.

This point is practical for both women and men listening. If a woman encounters a nice guy, she might wonder if he is genuinely nice or just weak, as Nietzsche criticized when he said most morality is cowardice. He meant that cowards use morality as a disguise. To sort this out, one should look for proof of moral virtue, which would be sacrificial proof. This means asking, "What are you doing that's extremely difficult that indicates your commitment to these high moral standards?" It can't just be ideological hand-waving; it has to be a real indication of commitment. For example, a buddy who donated a kidney should put that on his dating app because it's an honest signal of being a good person.

=> 01:03:02

Beware of those who use false moral virtue to disguise their selfish intentions.

When discussing cowardice, it was mentioned that cowards use morality as a disguise. If you're trying to sort that out, especially as a woman, you should demand proof of someone's moral virtue. This proof should be sacrificial proof, indicating a real commitment to high moral standards, not just ideological hand-waving. It has to be a real indication of commitment, and there must be a price paid for it. For instance, a buddy who donated a kidney should highlight that on a dating app as an honest signal of being a good person. However, there are many false signals of being a good person as well.

This leads to a broader discussion about the culture war, which is not just a political issue. The core of cluster B psychopathology, where narcissists fit, includes narcissistic patterns and the willingness to proclaim oneself a victim while masquerading with false moral virtue. This is a sneaky game where individuals portray themselves as hyper-virtuous to gain everything for themselves. In the political realm, psychopathic predatory types take the moral claims of any political group, left or right, and make them emblematic of their own virtue, hiding as exemplars of those ideals. This gives them false social status and enables them to exploit others.

In the real world, we protect ourselves against predatory psychopaths and narcissists by not engaging with them more than once or twice. Trusting someone might lead to being taken advantage of once, but people remember and avoid repeated interactions with such individuals. However, online, people can act without repercussions, and their identity can't be tracked. This lack of accountability allows them to get away with their actions.

Historically, in times of crisis like the Russian or French Revolution, psychopathic narcissistic predatory types thrive in chaos, hoping for instability to exploit their tricks. The concern now is that social media platforms enable these psychopaths to organize. This is evident on the right, where there's a rise in Neo-Nazi narcissist mouthpieces, creating a powerful and terrifying online force. These predator types hijack the language of political debate, accruing the morality of either side to benefit themselves, while the rest of society suffers. The discourse driven by anonymous narcissists, often the dark tetrad types, is well-established in psychological literature.

The question remains: what can be done about this pervasive issue?

=> 01:07:20

Anonymous narcissists and trolls are driving political polarization online by hijacking debates and exploiting social media's attention-seeking algorithms.

Narcissist mouthpieces are becoming increasingly prevalent, and it's happening so quickly that it's terrifying. This is a very powerful online force. What seems to happen, and everyone needs to be aware of this, is that the psychopathic predator types hijack the language of the political debate. They accrue the morality of either side because both sides make moral claims, and they benefit from that while the rest of us suffer dreadfully. The fact that so much of the discourse is driven by anonymous narcissists is well-established in the psychological literature. The people who are manipulating the social media landscape, the anonymous troll types, are the dark tetrad types.

People who are more narcissistic and psychopathic are more likely to be trolls online and antagonistic. When you add anonymity to that natural personality disposition, people tend to do more of whatever they're inclined to do. If it's a bad thing, they do worse. This is similar to social psychology findings where kids in costumes take more candy or people in cars flip each other off and honk, but they never do it in person because they're anonymous. The anonymity acts as a shield and makes everything more extreme. It could also make people love each other more in certain contexts, like at a rave, but generally online, it leads to more problematic behavior. It's a combination of personality traits plus anonymity. In a small town where everybody knows everybody, you can't be that narcissistic because you'll get shut down. In a big city or online, which is the biggest city, you can fool more people.

It's very much worth emphasizing the anonymity issue. We like to think that we regulate our behavior with something like a super ego or conscience, an internal constraint. There's truth in that, although we all have weak points where our internal constraints might not be as robust as they should be. Mostly, the reason people behave is that they're socialized enough to take turns and be altruistic enough for others to tolerate them. In a dynamic social environment, every time they err, they get corrected almost immediately, outsourcing that control. When people are made anonymous, they misbehave much worse, stripping away that social control. Add to that the breadth of reach and the fact that social media networks incentivize attention-seeking, and you have the makings of a perfect storm. This proclivity to dark tetrad traits plus anonymity and reach might be enough to account for the vast majority of the political polarization characterizing the current discourse in the West. It's literally a consequence of attention-seeking narcissists ramping up the social discourse.

When social media was built, it wasn't planned like a highway system with connections. They simply allowed connections, and the people who built those connections were narcissistic and attention-seeking. Sometimes they were instrumental, wanting to make money, but they built social media on the back of attention-seeking and egotism. The currency is ego, and the content transmitted is high emotional content, high anger, and sometimes humor. What do you expect from a system built by people with egos that transmits highly emotional and angry content?

=> 01:11:24

Social media thrives on short-term attention, driven by narcissism and emotional extremes, creating a toxic cycle.

When they built social media, the point I try to make with people sometimes is that the way they built it was not like a highway system where they plan the connections. All they did was say, "Hey, connect away," and the people who built those connections were the people who were narcissistic and attention-seeking. Sometimes they were instrumental; they wanted to make money or whatever. They built social media on the back of attention-seeking and egotism. That's the currency—ego—and the stuff that's transmitted is high emotional content, high anger, sometimes humor. You have a system built by people with egos that transmits things that have a lot of emotional content and a lot of anger. What do you expect is going to happen? Everyone's going to hate each other.

It's also optimized, and this is also terrifying, to grip short-term attention. Given our discussion already, we kind of associated maturity with the ability to regulate your present behavior because of the future and because of other people. That's a long-term game, like a long-term mating strategy, and there's nothing about that moment-to-moment that is rife with enthusiastic excitement, even the excitement of rage. It's a calmer, more mature long-term game. Maybe it's the great responsible adventure of your life, but the net maximizes for the grip of short-term attention.

Now we have a three-way storm: the narcissists and the sadists rule, optimized by the social media algorithms. Even more importantly, the only thing that matters is capturing someone's attention now. What that seems to mean is that we've created an environment where the mindset of an immature narcissist is reinforced constantly, algorithmically, with the AI systems. It's kind of like if you're in a classroom and you have to listen to the noisiest and most obnoxious person in the room all the time.

Imagine we're in a giant classroom, but we run it like Twitter or whatever, and whoever says the meanest, loudest thing is the person the teacher says to focus on. What happens to your class? You end up with just this cycle of people getting worse and worse to get attention, and it just collapses. We've seen too, online, there have been games—literal multiplayer games—that had to be shut down because they degenerated into chaos. The rules of the game weren't structured to allow long-term iterative social play, so it was a degenerating game.

It could easily be that if you think about Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok—maybe TikTok worst of all—these could easily be non-sustainable games that will degenerate into complete chaos because of the implicit pathology of their rules of engagement. It's highly probable. It makes sense that they would do that because it's easier for that to happen. You have to get the reinforcement rules correct, and the problem with that is we actually don't know how to do that explicitly. Where's the dividing line between allowable speech and, let's say, hate crime? Obviously, there's hateful speech, and purposefully so.

That doesn't mean we know formally how to regulate it in environments that are maximizing short-term attentional grip, for example. These systems are not well-designed for psychological growth. It's not like Facebook's trying to get to a place where everybody's happier or better, or X is trying to get to a place where everyone knows everything. There's no goal; it's just everyone's living in the moment all the time. I am guilty as charged. Instead of spending the day reading ancient books that have been around for a couple thousand years that have proven their benefit, I'll spend the day scrolling on X. That's a problem.

=> 01:15:45

Social media's addictive grip keeps us from meaningful growth and knowledge.

Speech is obviously right and purposefully so. Now, that doesn't mean we know formally how to regulate it in environments that are maximizing short-term attentional grip, for example, not at all. These systems are not well-designed for psychological growth, and they're not going to a place where everybody's happier or better. It's not like Facebook is trying to get somewhere, like we're trying to get to a place where everyone knows everything. There is no goal; it's just everyone living in the moment all the time.

I am guilty as charged. Instead of spending the day reading ancient books that have been around for a couple of thousand years that have proven their benefit, I'll spend the day scrolling on X. That's a problem, so guilty as charged. It is remarkably addictive. I've also found there's been a shift in my reading habits. Partly because it's more effortful to read a classic, especially if I'm tired, it's easy to default to the fire hose of at least pseudo-information that X provides.

The other thing you bring up is classic for self-regulation. We have the best intentions in mind and goals of what we want to do, but when we're tired or distracted, they kind of fall. You might really want to keep your diet but end up eating a burrito, or you might want to read The Book of Enoch but end up scrolling through X. It's just much easier to do stuff when you're tired.

Peterson Academy is going extraordinarily well. We have about 30,000 students now. We did a pre-enrollment for three weeks, and that was the enrollment so far. People seem very happy with the course offerings. We've set up the social media platform on Peterson Academy to have a goal: for people to exchange information related to their self-improvement on the educational side. So far, it's functioning that way. The fact that people have to pay essentially $500 a year to join also keeps the trolls, bots, and bad corporate actors pretty much down to zero.

One of the problems with social media pathology might merely be that it's free. People's attention is so valuable that if it's distributed for free, the psychopaths are going to take glorious advantage of that in a major way. That's another problem with the way these games are set up now.

We are going to expand rapidly because now that we have 30,000 enrollees, we have enough capital to put all of our plans into practice. Thank you for agreeing to teach a course. You're more than welcome to teach another because we would like our star lecturers to participate over the long run. You'll get your account information on the 9th of September, enabling you to use the social media network to interact with students and start publicizing your own course. This would be helpful to you, us, and hopefully the students.

We hope that we've cracked the pathological social network problem because it has a goal, all the features of other social media networks, but with a gate and high standards for interpersonal behavior, like a properly functioning university. We'll see if we can manage that. I'm curious about your experience lecturing. You were recorded in Miami. What was it like to go down there to do a course?

I only do things with people I like that are interesting at this age, so your team gave me the opportunity.

=> 01:19:57

We're creating a new kind of social network with high standards for behavior, aiming to combine the best of social media with the depth of university-level learning.

We are really excited about the new initiative, and we hope that we've cracked the pathological social network problem. This platform has all the features of other social media networks, but with a goal and a gate. We are going to impose relatively high standards for interpersonal behavior, similar to a properly functioning university. We are curious to see if we can manage that.

Reflecting on your experience lecturing, you were recorded in Miami. What was it like to go down there to do a course? You mentioned that you only do things with people you like and find interesting at this age. Your team gave you the opportunity to talk about whatever you wanted and promised to be nice to you, which you appreciated. You noted that the production value was the best you had ever been involved with, describing it as incredible. The performance took place in a giant white-painted warehouse, with significant work added in post-production. You appreciated the chance to do a lecture you were passionate about, spending eight hours covering the topic with a great team and audience. You are very excited to see how it turns out and are glad that the production has been financially successful, allowing for more projects.

At the Peterson Academy site, even without an account, you can see the trailers, including yours, as it is one of the 18 courses we are launching with. We have about 30 more courses already filmed and about 50 in the pipeline, aiming to release four courses a month. This production pipeline is filled for a year out, which is extremely exciting. The trailers accurately represent the courses, as we spent a tremendous amount of time in post-production to ensure they were edited carefully and beautifully. The white space is filled with appropriate text and images, making the courses aesthetically pleasing. It has been fun to elevate the production standards to match the content and imagery, resulting in spectacularly beautiful courses.

You expressed excitement to see how it all turns out, even though you don't like watching yourself. You appreciated the opportunity to go deep on a topic and get it recorded, something that is difficult to do in universities due to their structure, testing, and classes. We encourage people to come and talk for eight hours about their most passionate topics, similar to how you recorded your courses. This approach offers more freedom than traditional university courses, allowing experts to bring their best to the platform and share it with everyone. The response from students has been positive, with about 75% of them participating not for course credit but because they wish they could have had postsecondary education. This includes older individuals and those who were part of your audience.

=> 01:23:55

People are joining our platform not just for credits, but for the love of learning and community.

If we get the right people, and we have got the right people, they should be able to bring their best to the platform and share that with everyone. So far, the response from the students has been exactly that. Interestingly, about 75% of our students, and we don't have the final numbers yet, are there not even because they want the course credit. We are working very hard on the accreditation front, and that looks very promising. However, many students are there because they wish they could have had postsecondary education but didn't have the opportunity. This includes older people because everybody is welcome regardless of their age. Generally, the people in your audience when you came down there are on the platform because they want to learn. This is a great opportunity for a lecturer because there's nothing better than having an audience of people who are playing the same game you are.

I went into Academia because I wanted to understand The Human Condition and I love ideas. I did a postdoc with an academic named Roy Baumeister, who was a generational thinker. One day a week, we'd stay up until 2 in the morning just talking about ideas. That, to me, is the heart of the whole thing—that's what I love about it. In these courses, you're able to capture a little of that depth and the love of just ideas and playing with ideas. That's what I enjoy, so thank you for inviting me; it was fun.

We are also hoping, and this is going to be a tough nut to crack, to address the less obvious elements of what universities do. There are the superficial elements—the obvious ones like professors, students, classrooms, lectures, and tests—which are easy to duplicate online. What's harder to duplicate, and universities aren't that great at this either, is the apprenticeship element, the mentorship element, and the social network element. We are very acutely aware of these aspects. We hope our professors will use the social media site to interact with students. We are putting together study groups specific to each course and planning meetups. We also hope to have conventions a couple of times a year where we rent something the size of a large theater or stadium, bring 10 of our lecturers together for 2 or 3 days, and attract as many people as possible. This would allow us to do something in the real world akin to the university experience. We hope people will do this spontaneously if we have enough students, especially in bigger urban areas like New York or Chicago, where people could go to watch the lectures together.

We know we have to crack the social part of it, which is extremely important. One way of doing that is to get the social media network right, offering a curated social media experience that provides the benefits without all the pathologies. We hope to develop that culture right from the beginning.

All your membership information will be available on the 9th of September, when all the courses become freely available. We already have 30,000 people on the platform, and it looks stable—it hasn't crashed, and we've been able to deliver the courses to everyone. We also have a number of jurisdictions interested in working with us to pursue accreditation.

We hope to use the AI agents available now to take your course, for example, and translate it into the five biggest languages of the world to begin with. This could help bring higher education to the developing world at a very low cost, which would be cool if we can pull it off.

Basically, we have built a university with 30,000 people already, which is pretty remarkable. The language thing would work, I imagine, as they are getting pretty good at it. We could transcribe you into Spanish, and the AI systems would modify your mouth and use your voice and intonation. They are very good at that now, although we have been struggling a bit to find a company that...

=> 01:28:02

AI can now translate and adapt educational courses into multiple languages, making high-quality education accessible globally at a low cost.

We hope to use the AI agents that are available now to translate courses into the five biggest languages of the world. This could potentially bring higher education to the developing world at a very low cost. If we can pull it off, it would be remarkable. Building a university with 30,000 people is already a significant achievement, and the language translation aspect could work well, given the advancements in AI. These systems can transcribe and modify speech, including mouth movements, voice, and intonation, with high accuracy. Although finding a company that can provide both accurate translation and these modifications has been challenging, we believe this technology will be fully developed within the next four or five months. This would allow us to offer high-quality educational experiences in multiple languages at a low cost and scale rapidly over the next few years.

Moving on, all your material will be available on the 9th of September, and we are looking forward to that. Now, let's discuss the nature of narcissism based on your experience in the lab and otherwise. Narcissism can be understood as both a personality trait and an individual difference, meaning that a person's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are consistent across time and situations. In the realm of personality, there are two different forms of narcissism: grandiose and vulnerable.

Grandiose narcissism is characterized by self-centeredness, a sense of superiority, entitlement, assertiveness, agency, charisma, extroversion, and drive. This is the profile you often see in classic ex-boyfriends, politicians, and celebrities. On the other hand, vulnerable narcissism, which is less frequently discussed, involves antagonism combined with traits like envy and neuroticism. Vulnerable narcissists may appear depressed or anxious and, upon closer inspection, reveal self-centered tendencies. They are often more passive.

The fundamental axis of discrimination between these two types of narcissism is trait neuroticism. For example, an extroverted, disagreeable, and unconscientious person might be a grandiose narcissist bordering on psychopathy, characterized by low neuroticism and a fearless, predatory nature. Conversely, individuals high in neuroticism can also be narcissistic but will display traits of depression, anxiety, and victimization, using their suffering to manipulate others. Lower extroversion and higher neuroticism are more indicative of vulnerable narcissism, which is more defensive and sensitive to criticism, sometimes referred to as "thin-skinned" narcissism. Grandiose narcissists, in contrast, seek opportunities to shine and are more approach-oriented.

=> 01:31:59

Narcissists aren't truly self-centered; they're driven by whims and immediate gratification, which leads to long-term failure.

The distinction between vulnerable and grandiose narcissism can be understood through the lens of neuroticism and extroversion. Vulnerable narcissism is characterized by higher neuroticism and lower extroversion, making it more of a defensive structure. This type is often referred to as "thin-skinned narcissism," where individuals are constantly on the lookout for criticism. In contrast, grandiose narcissism is marked by a desire to shine and seize opportunities, such as being in front of a camera or microphone. This represents an approach versus avoidance orientation, although some individuals may exhibit characteristics of both types.

Historically, clinicians who observed narcissism often encountered more vulnerability, while those studying narcissism in leadership or criminality saw more grandiosity. This led to the development of two distinct theories that eventually converged. When narcissism becomes extreme and inflexible, it can lead to a narcissistic personality disorder. This disorder combines elements of grandiosity and vulnerability, resulting in significant impairment. For instance, a person who is narcissistic on stage may face problems if they exhibit the same behavior with their family, leading to ruined relationships and poor decision-making.

Personality disorders often involve extreme narcissism and may be rooted in childhood trauma, making the traits more fixed. Other forms of narcissism include communal narcissism, where individuals see themselves as the best friend or the most moral person, and malignant narcissism, which combines narcissism with sadistic and pathological traits. Generally, narcissism involves a disagreeable extrovert personality focused on gaining positive attention and avoiding negative attention.

It's important to note that narcissists are not merely self-centered but whim-centered, which ties into their immaturity. Proper self-treatment involves playing the long game and regulating social relationships, marriage, and family life. Narcissists, however, sacrifice the future and the well-being of others for immediate gratification. This behavior is akin to that of a two-year-old, who is driven by whims and prone to tantrums when their immediate desires are not met. This developmental trajectory highlights the fundamental immaturity of narcissistic individuals.

=> 01:36:09

Chasing short-term pleasures leads to long-term misery.

More specifically, and more precisely, you're not going to sacrifice the future or other people around you to the immediate gratification of your motivational or emotional states. The self, in this context, is crucial because the narcissistic type isn't exactly selfish in a productive way. They don't do well across time; they are prisoners of their own whims, which speaks to their immaturity. A 2-year-old is a creature of whim, fundamentally not social, and wants what they want right now, or it's tantrum time. This selfishness associated with narcissism isn't genuine self-care; it's subjugation to immature whims. It's not productive, and the narcissist doesn't benefit in the long run.

I appreciate that you're pushing back on the term "self-centered" because it corrects the misconception. It's not about caring for oneself and what's best in the next 20 years with a vision and pursuing it aggressively. Instead, it's about immediate hedonistic actions: seizing opportunities for status or engaging in infidelity without concern for consequences. This is why conscientiousness is a buffer to such behavior. As I usually tell my students, hedonism is a terrible way to be happy. If you always do what makes you happy in the moment, you're guaranteed to be depressed and ruin your life. So, by "self-centered," it's more about being whim-centered.

The cardinal elements of narcissism include disagreeableness, extroversion, and low conscientiousness, especially when it becomes pathological. The short-term pleasure orientation is a crucial element of it, which aligns with hedonism. You don't get the malignant or criminal narcissistic type without including hedonism, characterized by a short-term mating strategy and living for the day. This is equivalent to a lack of cortical maturation, the default condition of a typical 2-year-old.

In the linguistic analysis that established the Big Five personality traits, many descriptors of negative emotion loaded powerfully on neuroticism. One of these descriptors is self-consciousness, a facet in the NEOS system. This is worth considering in relation to selfishness. Being concerned with oneself doesn't necessarily lead to happiness; self-consciousness is indistinguishable from negative emotion. It implies that being obsessed with oneself and being miserable are actually the same thing by different names.

In treating socially anxious clients, I used to suggest relaxation exercises and encourage them not to focus on their own experience. However, telling someone not to think about something often makes them think about it more. Instead, I advised them to go to a party and try to make a couple of people comfortable. This approach worked well because it shifted their focus from themselves to others, reducing their anxiety and allowing their social skills to emerge naturally.

Another point on hedonism is that short-term gratification of whims is a bad strategy.

=> 01:40:12

Focus on building relationships, not self-esteem, for lasting happiness.

The approach discussed worked well, almost like a charm. Many socially anxious individuals had some social skills, although not all. Some were very badly socialized and anxious because they didn't know how to behave in social environments. However, those with latent social skills often shut them off due to anxiety. By focusing on being hospitable, they stopped thinking about themselves, became effective, and their anxiety dissipated, allowing them to flow into natural conversation.

Another important point on the topic of Hedonism is that short-term gratification is a bad strategy. It's associated with self-consciousness and immediate desires, leading to high levels of negative emotion. Part of depression involves self-consciousness and neuroticism, and thinking about oneself is not a recipe for happiness. This concept is also seen in social psychology work on egotism. When people seek self-esteem directly, they often fail. However, those who focus on forming good relationships end up gaining self-esteem as a side effect.

The self-esteem movement has been criticized for teaching fragile narcissism rather than genuine self-esteem. True self-esteem, which involves regulating negative emotions, is obtained through long-term, functional, reciprocal relationships. These relationships are stable and reliable, decreasing negative emotions. Most self-esteem measures are primarily about neuroticism, with some extraversion. Psychologists should teach that the best pathway to emotional self-regulation is through service to others.

Jean Twang and I explored this in our book, "The Narcissism Epidemic," examining cultural changes from the self-esteem movement. The idea of making kids feel special to boost self-esteem is a disaster. Real self-esteem comes from positive relationships and age-appropriate challenges, providing confidence and connection. Relationships are a long-term, durable source of well-being, unlike the fleeting nature of self-esteem from winning or being cool.

In summary, focusing on relationships is a more effective strategy for liking oneself. This is a good place to end our discussion. For those interested, we will delve more into Dr. Campbell's background and his study of narcissism on the Daily Wire side. We didn't cover entitlement, a dangerous attitude that doesn't benefit the entitled person. Thank you, Dr. Campbell, for discussing narcissism, a crucial topic in our social media-driven age. Your work, along with Dr. Roy Baumeister and Jean Twang, provides valuable insights into the intersection of psychopathology, social psychology, and personality psychology.

For everyone watching and listening, join us on the Daily Wire side for more. Thank you for your time and attention.