Welcome! Today, we delve into a critical examination of a phenomenon termed “hypersociality,” as explored by long-time reader and occasional contributor, Albrt. This article aims to shed light on behaviors that foster incompetence and unethical practices, particularly among elites. Albrt introduces hypersociality as a combination of acute responsiveness to social cues, exceptional ambition, and a lack of problem-solving drive. This phenomenon allows individuals to ascend professionally by cultivating alliances rather than by achieving meaningful results.
The implications of hypersociality are profound; it not only tolerates poor performance but also encourages complicity in corruption and regulatory violations. While interpretations may differ, Ursula von der Leyen often epitomizes these concerning traits in European leadership.
In a 2008 piece for the Conference Board Review, I addressed aspects of this problem, pondering the interplay between enforced optimism and hypersocial behavior:
In the business sector, we’ve transitioned from pragmatic management to a culture of feel-good leadership. Lucy Kellaway of the Financial Times recently remarked, “For those in authoritative positions, the ability to say no is paramount… A blind affection for positivity underpins contemporary management philosophy. The ideal manager is seen as enabling and nurturing, often defaulting to ‘Yes,’ while ‘No’ is viewed as demotivating and uncreative.”
However, individuals possessing both hypersocial traits and high intelligence can be particularly disruptive. Occupying fields like private equity, they adeptly manipulate systems for personal gain, often leading investors into disadvantageous contracts rife with fees that compromise rights, employing intricate financial instruments to inflate profits—even when these actions drive the associated firms into ruin.
By Albrt. Originally published at his website.
While I don’t use Xitter, I make it a point to follow notable accounts. One such account belongs to @armchairw, the Armchair Warlord, who recently mentioned his semi-retirement from the platform (fingers crossed it’s just temporary). He represents an example of an internet personality whose content often surpasses that of overcompensated mainstream journalists. In light of this, I felt compelled to finish a post inspired by one of his tweets.
The resounding defeat of Labour in the May 7th local elections in Britain, following its prior substantial victory, highlights a recurring pattern.
This mirrors the so-called Davos Regime.
In recent electoral cycles, we’ve seen Party A pursue a distinct pro-globalist agenda—let’s call it the Universal Davos Policy—which heavily favors elites yet is largely unpopular among the populace due to its detrimental impact on living standards and cultural cohesion. Party B then capitalizes on this discontent, winning a protest vote, only to implement the same policies, often derisively ignoring calls to fulfill campaign promises. Party A subsequently regains power, perpetuating this cycle with little change to the underlying agenda.
The Warlord’s insights reflect the current unipartisan dynamic evident in Western democracies. However, I found his subsequent observations particularly thought-provoking.
Notably, the Davos Regime operates upstream from policy-making processes. By monopolizing political discourse through academia and media, they shape the limits of acceptable debate, serving the interests of an elite class of transnational oligarchs. This influence extends further through various mechanisms, including donor pressure and even intimidation.
While this regime wields substantial power, it often displays a troubling level of ignorance, inheriting traits of arrogance and insularity from the Western elite. This leads to consistent failures when engaging with countries possessing different political frameworks, such as Iran and Russia. However, their skill in molding Western politicians is impressive.
That, my friends, is who governs us.
This portrayal closely mirrors age-old descriptions of clandestine groups believed to control Western governments. Suggestions of a hierarchical structure imply that specific individuals issue commands, yet no concrete evidence supports these theories, leading many to dismiss them as mere conspiracy narratives.
However, the repetitive nature of these claims underscores a tangible reality: elites often display remarkable coordination in their actions, suggesting a deeper explanation for their behavior.
This brings us to a critical inquiry: why do elite actions consistently undermine the very institutions from which they theoretically benefit?
The Hypersociality Hypothesis
The Warlord’s observations reminded me of an insightful blog entry by Zvi Mowshowitz from early 2021. By then, it was evident that official responses to COVID-19 in the U.S. were marked by incompetence and deception. Mowshowitz gained a following by articulating facts that contrasted with prevailing narratives. In a post, he explained why he wouldn’t be suitable for a position to rectify these issues.
I referenced Mowshowitz’s words in a post on Naked Capitalism in 2023:
“Navigating the moral complexities of government requires a specific type—one who instinctively plays political games, forms coalitions to seek power, and rewards those who share that desire. Sacrificing power for ethical action is rarely an option.”
Mowshowitz argued that individuals like Rochelle Walensky, then CDC Director, focused on maximizing their power and suppressing coherent ethical frameworks in favor of social maneuvering.
“The systems surrounding her reinforce instinctive actions over deliberate decision-making, often resembling thought-out choices.”
While his portrayal may seem cynical, I’ve realized it doesn’t encompass everyone. Many individuals in bureaucracies are not motivated by ambition but by a genuine desire to contribute positively. They are not conspiring but responding to existing structures and cultures within their organizations.
Today, I wish to delve deeper into the underlying reasons behind elite dishonesty and incompetence by proposing what I refer to as the “Hypersociality Hypothesis.” This concept emerged from connecting the Warlord’s rebuttals with Mowshowitz’s insights, ultimately developing a framework to understand the pervasive issues within our elite institutions.
The Hypersociality Hypothesis posits that social skills, as Mowshowitz described, are unevenly distributed across various groups, including bureaucracies filled primarily with technical expertise. Within all larger human organizations, individuals often exhibit a set of traits:
- Exceptional ability to intuitively send and receive social cues. Highly hypersocial individuals often recognize and value similar traits in others, forming exclusive groups reminiscent of high school cliques, where positioning matters more than factual accuracy.
- Above-average intelligence but limited interest in complex analysis. While relative intelligence may vary, positions in bureaucratic settings typically require just enough intellectual capability to fulfill routine tasks, often prioritizing straightforward thinking over nuanced analysis.
- A strong tendency to conform to social patterns. As noted by Musa al-Gharbi, conformity to prevailing opinions often becomes a primary selection criterion in academic systems.
Together, these traits characterize hypersocial individuals, granting them confidence and ease within organizational frameworks. They instinctively prioritize social cues over analytical reasoning, and those who stray from these behaviors often face ostracism.
While these observations about hypersocial behavior may seem self-evident, they lead to a more nuanced understanding of the pervasive influence of such cliques within institutions. Hypersocial cliques, which form a vertical structure within organizations, connect leadership and lower-tier employees, thus influencing decision-making across the board.
Returning to Bonilla, while she outlines considerable institutional planning, I contest that bureaucracy’s decision-making processes often lack clarity. Many documents don’t translate effectively into outcomes, creating an opaque maze of work product that falls short of providing straightforward solutions.
“The essence of institutional planning in complex environments lies in the absence of a single commanding mind. The processes themselves yield coherence over time.”
I argue that such coherence may be overstated, as bureaucratic outputs often don’t align with desired results. Instead, the influence of hypersocial cliques and their interconnectedness with external entities emerges as a more significant force within institutions.
This observation poses crucial questions: How do hypersocial behaviors limit the transparency of bureaucratic decision-making? How can these informal networks dictate acceptable discourse and outcomes without formal directives?
- Hypersocial cliques differ from the Professional Managerial Class (PMC). Rather, the Hypothesis underscores that these dynamics can be found across various levels of social structures, including mundane roles within any institution.
- Hypersociality may be heightened in groups with notably fewer of these traits. For example, environments like the CDC may amplify hypersocial dynamics amidst an otherwise structured and analytical workforce.
- The influence of hypersocial cliques also varies by institutional nature. Today’s Western frameworks appear optimized for hypersocial control, enabling these cliques to dominate without overt surveillance.
How do hypersocial individuals maintain influence over those who do not share their characteristics? Mystery remains central to the allure of such cliques, embedding uncertainty within organizations.
Additionally, the concept of the Overton Window delineates viable ideas within social discourse, often influenced by hypersocial networks, which dictate the limits of acceptable discussion. Individuals generally hesitate to challenge these boundaries, fearing ostracism.
Other systems, particularly in governance, exhibit similar dynamics. In most cases, while voters may select from candidates shaped by party systems and hypersocial behaviors, real power typically converges within the institutions that govern.
Examining the differences between Western institutions and those in countries like Iran, Russia, and China, one may find mechanisms that allow for rational thought to coexist alongside hypersocial influence. While our elites increasingly succumb to hypersocial pressures, alternative systems may enable more substantive governance.
Conclusion
The “Hypersociality Hypothesis” elucidates how certain individuals wield extraordinary influence within institutions, shaping policies and behaviors through implicit social networks rather than overt commands. This understanding invites us to reflect critically on institutional dynamics, seeking methods to counterbalance these influences. Ultimately, addressing the challenges posed by hypersocial structures is vital for fostering transparent, rational governance, and maintaining the integrity of our societal institutions.
