
Does power really corrupt? - Turukawa
https://www.1843magazine.com/features/does-power-really-corrupt
======
sebringj
Intuitively, this feels very right with my experience being on both sides of
the fence. I would need to do a study on one aspect of this in particular that
gut-wise is the core of this IMO: The way people treat you shapes your
personality and how you treat others in the future. To me this is more to the
heart of the issue. For example, when I was poor, people treated me like I was
not really wanted or that I was expected to go the extra mile to please. I
tended to feel less important with less confidence and didn't feel I was
special in any sense, which in some sense made me more selfless to a degree.
On the flip side, having money, the service industry kisses your ass and women
treat you like you're the hot item on Black Friday. This inflates your ego and
you expect that treatment after awhile, becoming more picky and discerning of
everything, moving in the direction of being a selfish asshole. This is the
same reason IMO why beautiful women tend to be perceived as rude or the "B"
word as they see most men as just a commodity as they are inundated with
unwanted attention.

~~~
tryitnow
To play the devil's advocate: What's wrong with being more selective? I don't
think anything is.

What's problematic is how people go about it. Our society doesn't teach us how
to be selective with grace and manners. So when people realize they have power
in a situation they freak out a bit and might over react in being excessively
picky or rude to others.

~~~
internaut
The problems with class warfare are similar to those of racial discrimination.

The problem is not that there is no basis for using a filter but that assuming
everybody is identical within a class (or subset, which has a 1:1 mapping to
the notion of class) is a logical error.

It is not about morality so much as logic. Suppose I find Italians to be
corrupt and untrustworthy. Well evidently there exist Italians who are honest
with good intentions. That some of set of Italians genuinely do belong to a
mafia is not indicative of the larger group, even if it were so that a
majority of Italians were mafiosos.

Of course real life is complicated, people have to resort to satisficing
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing))
and worse yet harmful behavior patterns aren't limited to any subset of the
group. Notoriously there exist robin hoods and bad cops. Choosing not to go
down the wrong street is reasonable under satisficing but rejecting job
candidates for having the wrong names is.

All of this is to say that discrimination in of itself is not illogical but
discriminating indiscriminately IS.

~~~
jospoortvliet
The problem here is our lack of understanding of statistics. Yes, there
probably are differences in averages on things like criminality, intelligence,
lazyness and so on between groups like male/female, ethnicity, gay or straight
and so on.

But, besides the fact that the difference might not be in the direction you
think it goes, in all these cares, inter-group variability is tiny compared to
intra group variability.

That means: it doesn't matter in practice. Whether men ow women are on average
more intelligent, those 1-3 average IQ points are so irrelevant compared to
the 15-30 points 5 random people in a room would generally differ from each
other that it is barely of academic interest and certainly useless to use to
judge a random men or women you meet.

This thing is true for many differences between groups often discriminated
against. Scientist are thus inclined not to research these differences: if
they exist they are rarely helpful for policy (too small) but often their
reporting results in people misbehaving even more due to their
misunderstanding the impact (or rather lack thereof).

~~~
internaut
It is true that inter-group variability is tiny compared to intra group
variability.

However I strongly disagree that it does not matter in practice. In practice
people are not randomly assigned rooms to be in. They certainly do not meet
other people randomly. The result is group identity becomes ever more strongly
associated and tribes form. Stereotypes are developed and so on.

For example; it does not surprise me that tiny eastern European countries have
coders working for Google but much larger and closer minority populations do
not. EE workers are natively nowhere close to Google HQ and they don't even
share a common language and culture. These are high barriers.

That there exist a larger number of people with the hypothetical potential to
code for Google (which surely exist because of intra group variability) within
that minority American population is not relevant. Those people do not want to
code for Google i.e. exchange their labour in this area for money. The eastern
european coders from (really) tiny states on the other hand have a strong
desire to work in those domains that computer corporations select for in their
workers.

Even though there are many differences between a typical coder in the United
States and a typical Eastern European coder, their shared 'tribe' of basically
being geeks trumps everything else. That ought to be GOOD news for those who
want to avoid discrimination based on the superficial differences but somehow
it does not seem to be taken as this. That's politics.

Obviously scientists are under social pressure not to examine such visible
differences. This is because they are failures at being scientists. I do not
say that lightly. These are atrocious failures of omission. If society only
receives measurements it looks for, then why bother doing any research at all?
We already know the answers! It is certainly cheaper to confirm society's
biases, whether we're in Victorian times or in the present. It's like being a
fat man avoiding the weighing scales.

I understand your point about the gen.pop taking complex research with many
confounding variables and reducing the results to a simplistic and inaccurate
story. That worries me as well, not just in cases of racial discrimination,
but as a general error. That said I cannot agree it makes no difference for
public policy (because of the non-random sorting I mentioned earlier). Public
policy ought to be based on reality, if the map does not conform to the
territory problems will occur. Any system that produces inaccurate information
and then has to depend on the false outputs will constantly be tripping itself
up.

As a last point, although gen.pop can do dumb things sometimes, that is no
reason to feed them platitudes. They do however have bullshit detectors which
go off when what the media describes to them isn't what they see in their
realities. They are capable of complex thought and thought evolution over time
and I fail to see how deliberately misleading them can lead to a greater good
without dysfunction. Frankly I think a decline in economic prosperity has a
lot more to do with inter-group dynamics going bad, with propaganda causing it
to be worse, but as a second order affect.

I agree that IQ is far from the deciding factor in most individual cases. 3-5
points really isn't that much. You could get that many points by taking a ten
minute walk and a shower! The issue though is that just as gravity does not
affect you and I on the microscale we are at, with enough mass/size things
start happening that really do impact on us. I don't know if you've ever
walked from a room with average people to a room with people who are totally
into the thing you're into, but the difference is very palatable to me. I much
prefer the second room over the first, even if that first room had a slightly
higher IQ. Why? Because I can now get something done! In fact we all can. That
almost comes as a relief.

------
clock_tower
Anglo-Saxon saying: "You know what a man is when he can do as he likes." Good
people with power will remain good people. Narcissists, people who say "I told
you so", and other nasty pieces of work will remain nasty pieces of work when
in power -- look at the journal editors who rejected Egloff's paper for a
petty example.

As for whether Mercedes drivers behave badly? I find it easy to believe that
they do. There are those who don't know the social language of cars, and those
who inherit family cars, but the sort of person who knows the language of cars
and buys a Mercedes anyways is the sort who has money but no taste -- "West
African cabinet ministers and Beverly Hills dentists" in Paul Fussell's phrase
-- the sort of person who would voluntarily live in Malibu.

~~~
sevensor
The Mercedes thing is interesting. I hadn't been paying attention to it until
I began to notice a pattern -- whenever somebody in my town was driving as if
the rules of the road and basic humanity did not apply, the vehicle was
usually a Mercedes. I've been wondering about it ever since. There are
definitely benign Mercedes drivers on the road, but the brand seems to attract
more than an ordinary proportion of jerks. (This is the kind of thing one
notices a lot as a cyclist, and Mercedes owners are responsible for more than
their fair share of near misses with me.) I looked for the same pattern with
other luxury vehicles, but it doesn't seem to apply to BMW, Audi, Porche, or
Maserati. Since nobody in my social circle owns a luxury vehicle, I remain
intensely curious about who, exactly, is driving these things. Does it have
something to do with being the kind of person who is willing to buy a vehicle
with ho-hum performance, expensive repair bills, and poor fuel efficiency?
Have you got a link for the "language of cars" you're talking about?

~~~
dota_fanatic
I suspect your anecdote is just that. Around here (Texas) I tend to suspect
unfriendly driving from large trucks and "cheap" sports cars and am more
defensive in my driving when I 'm around them. What is the actual distribution
of unfriendly drivers? Many mercedes I see are older folks who drive slowly
and safely (perhaps too slowly...)

As for why buy a luxury car, it's much like why buy an apple laptop? It tends
to be a completely different user experience compared to your early hyundai,
low-end mazda, <insert budget models here>. As for my luxury car that I got a
great deal on used, even considering repair costs, its performance and ride
quality is anything but ho-hum...

~~~
sevensor
> I suspect your anecdote is just that.

Sure, take it for what it's worth. At best, it applies only to the town where
I live. Still, the opening anecdote in the article resonated with me because
Mercedes drivers around here have shown an unusually small amount of concern
for my welfare.

As a cyclist, one tends to be more than usually sensitive to people trying to
kill you with their cars. I submit that as the driver of a high-performance
luxury vehicle, you may be more than usually sensitive to people driving too
slow for your taste.

~~~
mosdave
> At best, it applies only to the town where I live. Still, the opening
> anecdote in the article resonated with me because Mercedes drivers around
> here have shown an unusually small amount of concern for my welfare.

Another Texan checking in, and I absolutely agree with you (with the addition
of BMW and a growing number of Audi drivers).

95% of my travel is by bicycle or motorcycle and in my personal experience
this group of drivers is disproportionately less concerned with the
safety/welfare of others.

------
humanrebar
Not that this study isn't interesting, but Lord Acton was really talking about
how powerful people corrupt _us_.

''' I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other
men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any
presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the
power increases. Historic responsibility [that is, the later judgment of
historians] has to make up for the want of legal responsibility [that is,
legal consequences during the rulers' lifetimes]. Power tends to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even
when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd
the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse
heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at
which . . . the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no
position, . . . but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler
to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a
clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would
spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher
than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher,
for the sake of historical science.... '''

[http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html](http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html)

What is he getting at? We'd hang Mary and forgive Elizabeth for the same
crimes, so we're corrupted by the powerful. I think the the leading
presidential candidates of both major U.S. parties shows this to be true.

~~~
Programmatic
I don't think that interpretation jibes with the text:

Assertion:

"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other
men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any
presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the
power increases."

Rationale:

"Historic responsibility [that is, the later judgment of historians] has to
make up for the want of legal responsibility [that is, legal consequences
during the rulers' lifetimes]. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power
corrupts absolutely."

He then goes on to rail against people that hold power:

"Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and
not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of
corruption by authority."

Without the idea that power tends to corrupt those in power, there would be no
reason to presume that they did wrong by default or to say that people who
exercise influence and authority are bad men.

~~~
madaxe_again
To define someone as bad you must also define good - and if you are defining
the terms, they are meaningless.

From the perspective of the "bad men", they are serving good - be that the
good they see in themselves or whatever cause it is they act in. Stalin
genuinely believed he was acting in the interests of the Soviet people. Pol
Pot was liberating his countrymen.

I would argue that the GP's interpretation is correct - we willingly ignore
our own moral compasses when we examine the behaviour of the powerful, as to
admit that those that hold power over you are "evil" is to admit your own
weakness in not actively opposing that power - so power does indeed corrupt
those who behold it, as much as those who hold it - if not moreso, as the "bad
men" act in "enlightened self interest" and do no wrong in their own eyes -
but you do do wrong by knowingly averting your eyes.

~~~
Programmatic
This is more about what Acton was saying, so we're looking at good and bad
from his perspective. I don't think we need to invoke moral relativity as we
already have a frame of reference. He seems to have clearly indicted men of
power unless there's text that I have omitted stating otherwise.

------
halov
Depends on how you think of power: a privilege or great responsibility? Power
corrupts those who think they deserve it.

"Two of my cousins and I entered the apartment of the Prophet (ﷺ). One of them
said: Messenger of Allah, appoint us rulers of some lands that the Almighty
and Glorious God has entrusted to thy care. The other also said something
similar. He said: We do not appoint to this position one who asks for it nor
anyone who is covetous for the same."

"If a dog dies hungry on the banks of the River Euphrates, Umar will be
responsible for dereliction of duty." Umar Ibn al Khattab

~~~
gambiting
"If a dog dies hungry on the banks of the River Euphrates, Umar will be
responsible for dereliction of duty."

can you explain what it means? English is not my first language and I'm having
difficulty getting the meaning out of this sentence.

~~~
deelowe
Paraphrasing - If a dog starves/drowns, the ruler is responsible for their
failure to perform their duties (keep the dog safe).

More or less saying everything is the responsibility of the ruler, no matter
how small the task, I think.

~~~
gambiting
Thanks :-)

------
steego
I know this isn't a popular idea, but I think people need to be more
empathetic to those who have been entrusted with power.

I despise corruption, but I think we do ourselves a disservice when we focus
all our attention on the officials who are being corrupted while allowing
armies of policy experts to influence official's opinions while funding their
campaigns.

The question shouldn't be "Does power really corrupt?", the question should
be, "Does power become a magnet for special interests hell bent on corrupting
it?"

~~~
awakeasleep
The very nature of power forces people to be empathetic to those who wield it.

Thats almost the definition of power, and it's also what corrupts people.

~~~
anexprogrammer
This, probably apocryphal, quote applies:

Those who want power shouldn't have it, those who enjoy it do so for the wrong
reasons.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
You see these types of quotes all the time, but I've started to question their
wisdom. Is it really hard to imagine that the most qualified ruler might
happen to recognized themselves as the most qualified ruler and therefore want
the position?

Maybe I'm just being optimistic that a quest for peak social optimization
doesn't necessarily lead to a dictatorship...

~~~
anexprogrammer
No it's not that hard to imagine. But when I look at politicians, on either
side of the Atlantic, that's not what I see.

I see a lot of hard working MPs lost in the system, doing as the party
machines tell them. They're more subservient than powerful. I see the stars
and office holders following a much more Machiavellian approach.

A good question is whether that's mainly down to the types of people getting
involved, or the party machines that have developed.

------
ithkuil
Famous quote of Giulio Andreotti, an old Italian politician.

"Il potere logora chi non ce l'ha"

("Power wears out those who don't have it")

Note: the literal translation is "to wear out", but the phrase "il potere
logora" has the equivalent meaning of "the power corrupts", in the sense that
it wears out the moral compass.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Andreotti](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Andreotti)

~~~
Angostura
Perhaps go with 'degrades' which carries both connotations?

~~~
ithkuil
I used the translation I found in the linked wikipedia article and also the
most frequently cited form in the wild.

Furthermore 'degrades' can also imply that it demeans a person, strips one's
dignity, while recent history shows that Italy is a country where being
corrupt does not necessarily make you lose respect and honour (i.e honour !=
rightfulness).

------
some1else
It's a vicious cycle. In a world where corruption is rewarded, you are
chastised explicitly or implicitly for passing up the opportunity to get ahead
by participating in systemic abuse of power. I can't find the precise research
that illuminated how identifying a cheater (who is perceived either as part of
the community, or an outsider), can influence the rest of the class to cheat
at tests or not. But this infographic[1] identifies peer pressure as the #1
reason for cheating in college, and seems to back it up with survey and
research evidence.

1:
[http://www.bestcollegereviews.org/cheating/](http://www.bestcollegereviews.org/cheating/)

------
gwern
"A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior"
[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133193)
, Korndörfer et al 2015:

"Does being from a higher social class lead a person to engage in more or less
prosocial behavior? Psychological research has recently provided support for a
negative effect of social class on prosocial behavior. However, research
outside the field of psychology has mainly found evidence for positive or
u-shaped relations. In the present research, we therefore thoroughly examined
the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. Moreover, we analyzed
whether this effect was moderated by the kind of observed prosocial behavior,
the observed country, and the measure of social class. Across eight studies
with large and representative international samples, we predominantly found
positive effects of social class on prosociality: Higher class individuals
were more likely to make a charitable donation and contribute a higher
percentage of their family income to charity (32,090 ≥ N ≥ 3,957; Studies
1–3), were more likely to volunteer (37,136 ≥N ≥ 3,964; Studies 4–6), were
more helpful (N = 3,902; Study 7), and were more trusting and trustworthy in
an economic game when interacting with a stranger (N = 1,421; Study 8) than
lower social class individuals. Although the effects of social class varied
somewhat across the kinds of prosocial behavior, countries, and measures of
social class, under no condition did we find the negative effect that would
have been expected on the basis of previous results reported in the
psychological literature. Possible explanations for this divergence and
implications are discussed."

~~~
internaut
Gwern, I declare you to be a natural aristocrat.

I hope you won't get mad if we freeze you until the world cycles back around
to the idea of making rulers effective at their jobs.

I don't think we'll have long to wait. The Net is over turning many formerly
reasonable ideas by holding up a mirror to us. Will Rogers said: It isn't what
we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.
<opinion> The Net is the end of egalitarianism, forever until perhaps genomics
is truly cracked.

It's going to an interesting ride! I hope we wind up closer to the Diamond Age
than Snow Crash though.

~~~
sn9
Did you not catch the hint in _DA_ where _DA_ is set in the same universe as
_SC_? It's just a few decades later.

~~~
internaut
I did hear of that idea Mr Sn9 (let's bring back Dickensian mannerisms!)

Sully of Slashdot claims to have met Mr Stephenson at a book signing.

Quote forthwith:

According to Neal, Diamond Age and Snow Crash are not in the same universe at
all. He stated further that any similarity is just due to the coincidence of
the both novels having the same author.

Anyway. It was a good idea even if it was incorrect. Mayhap another shining
hypothesis slain by ugly facts.

To clarify: I was implying to Gwern that Snow Crash would be a dismal universe
to live in because the world was clearly in some kind of stagnation or slump
caused by the (I don't have a good way to express this with words properly)
backwash of globalization.

If the Diamond Age is an evolution from Snow Crash then it is a much better
world to live in. My original impression is strongly of a more fragmented
world yet also one with more stability and wealth as compared with Snow Crash,
which is a slow motion train wreck.

Ironically I believe we truly do live in the world of Snow Crash. We've
stagnated badly over the last few decades and we're just about waking up to
the consequences of it now.

It won't surprise you to learn I'm in favour of an aristocratic approach to
tackle the problem like the Vickies.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11724637](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11724637)

------
bayonetz
Great book on similar topic: "The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is
Almost Always Good Politics"

[https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-
Po...](https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics-
ebook/dp/B005GPSLHI?ie=UTF8&btkr=1&ref_=dp-kindle-redirect)

Provides compelling case that all politicians tend toward dictatorship with
the difference in how fully these tendencies are realized just being in the
size of the coalition they have to appease, reward, or bully. With
stereotypical absolute dictators this easy to see. On the other end of the
spectrum, it is more shrouded. American democracy is theoretically based on a
maximum sized coalition equaling roughly the entire population. In practice,
the leaders are beholden to and have to influence a much smaller coalition to
wield power. Something like the current Sanders/Clinton popular vote vs inner
circle super delegate issue demonstrates this pretty well. Fascinating read.

~~~
linhchi
But people with more power are the ones that have to make the hard choices.
And hard choices are hard, true by definition.

If one never has to burden any thing on one's shoulder, probably that one is
the burden of someone else. It's like this: we civil people can't stand
killing and shooting, that's why we outsource it to the government and praise
the army for their service.

Is it hypocritical? I don't know anymore.

------
quadrangle
"SORRY, YOU NEED TO ENABLE JAVASCRIPT TO VISIT THIS WEBSITE." it tells me. I
do. I see flat, plain text with some images. WTF. Don't be those web devs,
guys!

------
Tepix
The page demands more power:

"Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website."

But I'm not going to give it away!

~~~
co_dh
really? I write javascript(typescript) for living.

~~~
clentaminator
I'm so sorry.

------
alanwatts
Having power is a requirement of being corrupt, by the definition. If you
didn't have power, you wouldn't have the leverage to corrupt the system in the
first place.

>Corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct _by those in power_ , typically
involving bribery

------
velodrome
Exploring the Psychology of Wealth, ‘Pernicious’ Effects of Economic
Inequality:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuqGrz-
Y_Lc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuqGrz-Y_Lc)

------
singold
And remember in most cases (if not all) your boss is not your friend.

Kind of a corollary

------
2close4comfort
Power corrupts those who are in power to wield influence, eventually in
attempts to please all those they serve they find themselves without any
ideals or direction of their own. And I agree with some1else that people are
rewarded for this behavior but the chances of that changing are pretty slim so
I guess the real solution is not be weak/unempathetic people.

------
stplsd
‘We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative
terms: it ‘excludes’, it ‘represses’, it ‘censors’, it ‘abstracts’, it
‘masks’, it ‘conceals’. In fact power produces; it produces reality; it
produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the
knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production’

\-- Foucault

------
EGreg
Wow, finally an article that breaks Betteridge's law!

For a great speech on why power corrupts, by a powerful person, see this:

[https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/havel.html](https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/havel.html)

------
mentat
The basic research seems sketchy. You send however many students out, what is
the framing you're giving them for doing the rating? What are their own
current biases or likely statistical ones considering their current training /
profession / school?

------
pluma
It's not so much that power corrupts. Power is just a multiplier.

The problem is more that the kind of people who are most likely to end up in
positions of power are those who are going to abuse that power and don't care
about their responsibility (or have never learned it).

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
It's because democracy doesn't work - and nor does any other system.

Democracy selects politicians on their ability to persuade voters. Feudalism
and dictatorship select those who are the most violent and self-serving.

All are examples of a very niche kind of competence, which has nothing to do
with intelligent strategic planning.

~~~
pluma
I was thinking more of business people than politics, actually. What with the
trope that most successful business people are sociopaths.

------
Aelinsaar
Probably, but we don't spend enough time thinking about what kind of person it
is who seeks that power in the first place. Maybe there was nothing to corrupt
in the first place.

------
known
It's called
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle)

------
Animats
Recommended reading: "Assholes, A Theory".[1] A serious study of the rewards
and effects of being an asshole.

(I gave a copy of this to a friend who's an attorney for a major Silicon
Valley law firm, and she found it explained some of the people she had to deal
with.)

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Assholes-Theory-Aaron-
James/dp/0804171...](http://www.amazon.com/Assholes-Theory-Aaron-
James/dp/0804171351)

------
internaut
Interesting article. What I have to say will sound old fashioned but I think
it is relevant.

My opinion is that power does not corrupt as much under one circumstance. It
corresponds to old ideas about aligning interests of the group with the
individual. About also not having to answer to competitors for your status in
society.

If you are a trained member of the aristocratic class.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocrat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocrat)

Aristocrats != Wealthy. Although they usually are as a side affect.

Aristocrats can be born or more rarely raised into the class. They are
normally trained in an area of expertise or otherwise have a great deal of
experience. Example would be the House of Lords as opposed to the House of
Parliament members whom are democratically elected.

Today the word has a negative meaning but originally the aristocracy performed
any number of astonishing feats I do not believe modern governments are
capable of accomplishing.

In modern times it is possible that patriotism can serve a similar function
for well paid civil servants and that also being independently wealthy can be
an advantage against corruption. However these techniques are just derivatives
of the original idea of an aristocracy class.

Example of an official present day aristocrat would be Baroness Susan
Greenfield. A good example of a defacto (natural) aristocrat would be somebody
like Freeman Dyson.

These are people we can trust to have power and wield it responsibly. I
realize this is a highly imperfect system but it really is superior to modern
day ideas about democracy and responsibility.

Incidentally I have no money or power, I gain no advantage from believing
this. I arrive at this idea largely by reading history books. I just think if
you can't separate rich from the aristocrats you will get confusing and
conflated results as per the article.

Obviously the problem with aristocracy is the overly hereditary nature of it.
Freeman Dyson's children are excellent people but in different (magical to me)
ways. I could not say whether his grandchildren would share the same level
though, that's kind of the problem that lead to the word aristocracy having
negative sentiments.

------
vonnik
This is one of many arguments against total economic liberalism. Allowing
unlimited economic inequality produces a superclass that is likely to treat
the rest of society poorly.

~~~
p1esk
As communism experiments show, enforcing economic equality also produces a
superclass that treats the rest of society poorly. :)

~~~
vonnik
there's a whole lot of room in between. every modern nation state produces a
super class, but it's a question of how super they are, and whether possible
checks exist to their superness. there are few checks to vast wealth in the US
today.

------
profmouse
has anyone ever thought about ai being in power? Maybe being unemotional and
lacking emotional intelligence might be a possible solution where humans fail
once again...

~~~
DomreiRoam
The Culture books by Iain M. Banks talks about this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_series)

~~~
arethuza
The Culture books pretty much define the best case scenario for an AI run
society - the main control on the godlike-AIs (the Minds) running everything
being the opinions of their fellow Minds. Get it wrong, e.g. by fiddling with
the minds of meat beasties, and you get ostracized - which is about the most
severe punishment the Culture has:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCU_Grey_Area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCU_Grey_Area)

------
kazinator
The widespread lack of power suppresses the latent corruption in most people
from having any large impact.

The availability of power exposes the latent corruption.

------
cainxinth
I have two words for you: Homeowner Association

------
kelvin0
Make it illegal to own a black Mercedes, Voila!

------
Airspectral
No, I think it depends on the mind of the person. But yes, you are more expose
by corruption with power and money.

~~~
sebringj
These kind of studies address bell curves which by definition always has
outliers so your statement is correct but statistically may be an outlier. You
can always say "it depends" in other words.

------
z3t4
Some people like to take responsibility. Others like to be powerful. But
everyone wants to be important.

------
adrianlmm
As someone said:

"Power does not corrupt, corrups the fear to lose it"

------
hazza1
absolutely

~~~
venomsnake
Actually be scared of powerful person that is not corrupted. They are willing
to commit atrocities on much bigger scale.

------
thricegr8
No. See Marcus Aurelius

~~~
iofj
You mean the Roman Emperor telling everyone they should be happy with less
money, less food, less water, less everything ?

The Roman Emperor who got the position because he was his father's favorite
nephew ? The Marcus Aurelius who got a special exception on at least 2 laws
just for him personally from the Senate for his first job on special request
from his father ? Whose first job was qaestor ("minister of finance" \- sort
of) ?

That Marcus Aurelius ?

Actions speak louder than words, and given the fact that this guy was an
emperor (and is thus rather unlikely to have written those books himself) ...
probably were a PR campaign. A very successful one, but mostly nothing more
than a PR campaign.

Granted these are all cases of other people acting in a corrupt manner to
provide him with advantages in life no-one else had. It doesn't necessarily
reflect on his character ... however ... especially his succession ...

~~~
manmal
You are trying to point out Aurelius' corruption by critizising the way he
became emperor, which I find a bit weak. Is there evidence that he actually
mis-used his power when he already held that power? Also, how did he compare
to other emperors of his time? The things you mentioned could easily have been
culturally accepted.

~~~
iofj
Everything he ever did is one big billboard screaming he doesn't believe in
stoicism.

First, Of the things mentioned in my own post, which focus on the start of his
reign. His rise to power. Do you seriously believe he had no hand in that ? He
must have fought, in many ways, to get the position of emperor. He pursued
power, and not by working hard in any stoic sense (stoicism accepts only
actual "hand" labour as labour, and worthy of reward. Things like holding
senate/government/management positions, no matter how well executed, no matter
how punctual you are, aren't ever very stoic at all). That, by itself, is very
very very very un-stoic of him.

Second argument is his reign. He was an emperor advocating stoicism, known for
... being extremely generous when it came to "bread and circuses". His power
was built on what is close to the opposite of what his books advocate.

And third argument is the end of his reign, his kid (and his family, but that
would take us too far), and his succession. Clearly the behavior of his kid
was an indication of how his household functioned. His kid, Commodus, was
described as an extremely self-obsessed neurotic drunk ... It is not
physically possible to become either self-obsessed or drunk in a stoic
household.

------
pigpaws
Yes. Next question.

