[Rerun] Jordan Peterson on Wonder, Creativity, and the Personality of Political Correctness

a rerun. The next season of the Psychology Podcast will begin later this year. I haven't taken any break in five years of doing this podcast, so I thought it was about time to take a step back and think about how it can make us a better experience for you all. Until then, enjoy these episodes from our archives. Today we have doctor Jordan Peterson on the podcast. Doctor Peterson is a psychologist who has taught mythology to lawyers,

doctors and business people. Consulted for the UN Secretary General, helped his clinical clients manage depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety and schizophrenia. Served as an advisor as senior partners of major Canadian law firms and lectured extensively in North America and Europe with his students and colleagues at Harvard and the University of Toronto. Doctor Peterson has published over one

hundred scientific papers. Doctor Peterson is also author of two books, Maps of Meaning, The Architecture of Belief and Twelve Rules for Life, An Antidote to Chaos, which is a number one bestseller. Jordan, great to chat with you today. Hey, thanks for the invitation. Yeah, as we were saying just backchannel before we started, it's nice to finally like see you and talk to you. We've been in touch for

a while, and publish the paper on creativity. And I should give even further context which I never gave you when we were actually collaborating, which is, as I was working on my dissertation, I drew a lot on your work. I drew a lot on your work on creativity and personality, and I thought there'd be no better place than to start with our discussion than some of that seminal work

you have done on creativity. And one concept that really fascinated me in grad school was the idea of ladent inhibition, and you had done some work on that and had found this really interesting link between leane inhibition and the personality trade openness to experience. And then you did this, you know, you did that with Shelley Carson, and then you did this work looking at to creative achievement. So you can talk a little about what is leane in

amibition and how is it related to creativity. Well, a lot of what we learn, you know, you might think that you learn what things mean, and there is some truth in that, but it's more accurate in many ways, to reverse that, Like reversing so many things in psychology is useful. It's not that useful to try to figure out why people get addicted. For example, it's very useful to figure out why some people, well most people aren't addicted all the time. It's not that difficult to figure

out why people are afraid. What's hard is to understand why people aren't afraid all the time. So a lot of things in psychology we get backwards and we tend to think that we learn the meaning of things, but that's not exactly true. It's more reasonable to point out that we learn that things are irrelevant. They start out

meaningful and we learn that they're irrelevant. And the reason for that is that when you first encounter something, you don't want to assume that it's irrelevant, mostly because it might be dangerous, partly also because it might be useful.

But most of the things that we encounter prove to neither be dangerous nor useful, and so that we can safely put them aside with all the other things that we don't attend to, and we don't attend to almost everything, So learned irrelevance is unbelievably important, and latent inhibition is in some sense a way of measuring how fast someone

can make something irrelevant through learning. So imagine that something surprises you and you have a big response to it, but nothing comes of it, and then the next time it pops up it doesn't surprise you at all. That's basically learning through latent inhibition. Now, one of the things we started to contemplate, this was back twenty years ago with my student Shelley Carson and Daniel Higgins, was the

role that artists play in revivifying perception. So if you look at a Van goh painting of irises, for example, or sunflowers, very famous paintings, as if the artist makes you recall how those remarkable phenomena manifest themselves so that you can see them as if you're seeing them again

for the first time. And what we thought was that perhaps what the artist was doing was stripping away your latent inhibition so that you could see things the way you saw them the first time, in all their splendor and glory, before you packed them away conceptually as irrelevant. And so we tested that with creative people and found that creative people did have lower latent inhibition, and so

did people high in the personality trade openness. I love that I should say that Hans Isaac got their first curse his soul. He got everywhere he did good personality, I mean, William James, Williamjays got everywhere first, but he in terms of personality I think got there first. Yeah, well, William, what's funny. I guess in some sense William James even got there before Isaac because he played around with nitrous

Oxideah right, So he was. He was one of the first experimenters with hallucinogens fundamentally, and he wrote hippie poetry on nitrous oxide, noting what was likely something like the stripping away of latent inhibition as a consequence of hallucinogenic use.

So yeah, it's another and all the eldest. Huxley, of course too, believed that the hallucinogens in particular cleaned the doors of perception using William Blake's terminology, so that it was possible to see everything as if you were seeing it for the first time. There's some forms of brain damage that can produce that too, So anyways, that yeah, so we tested it, and well, it turned out that Layton inhibition does look like low latent inhibition looks like

it's importantly related to creativity and to trade openness. You know. Abraham Maslow, he talked about newness of appreciation as one of the main characteristics of self actualizing people, and I think that that can be linked to Laten inhibition. I'm sure you would agree it was. You just described, you know, kind of everything is you, kind of there's a wonder to the world. There's a wonder, everything is kind of

fresh again. Yeah. The cost is likely something like cognitive overload, like one of the things that Shelley Carson and I were trying to investigate when we studied the high openness people at Harvard, the high openness students, which was a very good place to study that was that it looks like in order to handle the excess sensory input of low late and inhibition, it's really useful to have very high well probably high IQ but and high working memory.

Those two concepts are quite overlapping, so it's difficult to distinguish between them, but it seems probable that if you're prone to be overwhelmed by sensory information, that you need the cognitive capacity to handle that and also perhaps the and we don't know about this yet, but the personality ability to sort through that critically so you don't end

up overwhelmed. So the shared vulnerability model of your student, Shelley Carson, is very relevant here, right, And I don't know do you know about I haven't kept up so well in the last couple of years with the recent work detailing out the shared vulnerability model. Shelley and I wrote a joint series of articles for the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry on shared vulnerability between openness and predisposition to schizophrenia.

I mean that's always lurking in the background when you talk about creativity, right, the share the overlap with manic depressive disorder and potentially with schizophrenia. I don't think that's

ever been sorted out properly. I've written a couple of papers in the past five years on the genetics of psychosis and its overlap with creativity, which is a fascinating you know, there's a lot of recent research on the genetics of this stuff and showing this overlap, and it seems to be particularly associated with this openness that things relate to open and things relate to the default networks. I think the discovery of the default mode network in

recent years has really allowed us to understand this. So my colleagues and I published a paper recently showing a link between the efficiency of the default mode network and the personality trade openness to experience. So a little bit yeah, yeah, sure, yeah, so we can now link, we can link you know,

the brain structure and network dynamics. Okay, So we used a network approach to look at the connectivity of the default network and actually analyze individual differences in the connectivity between people within the default network, so as a measure of your efficiency within that particular brain network as a start, and that was correlated with the opens to experience demean But then, so what does that mean increased connectivity within

the default network was associated with okay, and what did increased connectivity signify? What do you think the functional significance of that is, Well, I think efficiency in the sense of quicker information flow between the three major sub hubs of the default mode network is the three sub networks the default mode network involve the meaning making. Meaning making seems to be huge part of this network, you know,

the construction of self. People who get kind of this network knocked out, they don't even know who they are anymore. And I find that fascinating. I mean, then there's the

mental simulation part, being able to imagine the future. That's why I've called this network like the imagination network to be sexier about it, because I think default mode is like it connotes that it's kind of a passive network when it's actually a really active network, you know what I mean, Like, it's not like a Yeah, it does sound like a default does make it sound like it's passive. Hey, did you see the work done with psilocybin showing radical

increase in brain connectivity under the influence of psilocyber. Yeah, yeah, I love that, And I think that like we're on the verge sure of something really integrated Jordan, because like you know, you wrote that paper with Rachel Gratio point A and Colin you mapped out the whole terrain. I love that because we've been building off that. You could send you a paper where we had a synthesis of

the whole literature. We have this hierarchical model of the cognitive exploration to mean where you have like cognitive expiration at the top, and then you have openness and then intellect, which is the paper. You know, we showed openness into like differentially predict, crave, achieve. But then under that you find all sorts of facets which which are negatively correlated with each other, even though one step higher in the

hierarchy they're positively correlated. Right, Well, it seems to be going on there, right, is that there are these breed of humans that can take these contradictory modes of thought within themselves. You know, most people, the general population, of all these sorts of dichotomies. You're either selfish or you're not selfish. You're either compassionate or you're not you're either.

But it seems like credit people are amazing and able to like harness these conrad seemingly contradictory modes of being, and well, you know, I suspect it's probably a process of neotony. You know, I think that the creative people stay immature. I love that. Yeah, yeah, well, I mean, you know, there's a proclivity and evolution for creatures to evolve towards their neotonous form. Yeah. So, and it looks to me like the creative types are they're sustaining that

plasticity they have as really early children. Maybe they're permanently locked to some degree into that pretend play mode that's so characteristic of children between the age of four and say, well maybe eleven something like that. Well, it's good to have both those things operating, you know, because often you talk to people this is really characteristic of people who are sort of on the new age end of the spectrum. Carl Jung said something interesting once about how people think.

He said, for most people, a thought appears in their mind and they just accept it uncritically. So that's the thinking, But that's not really thinking. That would be more associated perhaps with what you described as activation of this imagination network. But it's a lot more difficult to have the thoughts appear and then to take them apart, and I think it would be really worthwhile to analyze the role of Well, we know IQ is important in that obviously, because IQ

just enables you to handle a larger number of variables. Hey, did you find out if that increased connectivity that you were describing was positively associated with IQ? Okay, I'm so glad to ask that, because I was going to tell you about the follow up paper. And by the way, I want to be totally fair to my collaborators. This was led by Roger Beattie. I ran something with Martin Selgum in the last four years that pen called the Imagination Institute, and as part of that we put out

a huge grant for people to do research. So we funded some of this research and I was a co author in some of these papers, but Roger Beattie did a lot of this work. Now, with that out of the way, the follow up paper showed that increased connectivity between the executive network and the default mode network was essential for creative thinking. So openness to experience is not equivalent to creative thinking, right, So that if the kind of one step is to show there's a link between

the imagination network and open us. But really real novel and meaningful creative cognition seem to require that both the default mode network and executive network executive tension and the salience network. Actually, the salience network is an interesting network. We could talk about the interaction between those two networks were essential for the cognition to be novel and meaningful. It's fascinating because most people in the general population, it's

anti correlated. Some of these networks are anti correlated, like most people. For most people, it's like as soon as you focus on the outside world, you shut up your imagination or when you go imagine. Yeah, but creative people are really goot creative. They're like a good at keeping

on call. Oh that's really interesting. Yeah, that really is interesting because Shelley and I, back when we were doing the Creative Achievement Questionnaire research, we kind of thought that one of the things that might characterize creative people is that ability to switch back and forth between openness and critical thinking was under voluntary control. It's interesting to think

the extent to which is undervoluntary control. I wonder how we could study that, Like we just know that this is what the brain networks are doing They're toggling back and forth, but could we ask could we do reports? It's almost the sense that, like creative people, as soon as you ask them to think about it, if they're in the flow state, then suddenly it evaporates. You know,

it's like, yeah, well it's hard to tell how much. Okay, so well, And of course defining voluntary scientifically is not a straightforward thing, but it'd be interesting to see if people do think about that as voluntary, and if it's a skill as well, if it's something that people can learn to develop, because you can, to some degree teach people critical thinking, like you could teach them to look at an idea and break it apart and analyze it. So all that remains to be determined, I guess. So

let's move on to some other topics. You did this really interesting study that you know, I wrote about Inside of America with Christine Brophy on the personality of put Yeah. We found we were looking, well, two things we wanted to establish. The first is we wanted to establish if there was a coherent group of political beliefs and attitudes let's say that you could bring under the rubric of

political correctness. You know, because of course, you know that just because a concept pops up in the popular literature, let's say, or often even in the psychological literature, that doesn't mean that the concept has any basis. In fact, what we did was we did a standard psychometric investigation,

and so we oversampled the politically correct attitude domain. We had a bunch of people come up with questions that seemed to be indicative of what people were describing when they discussed political correctness in the media, and we put together I think four hundred questions and had a very large number of people answer all of them, and then subjected the question the answers to a factor analysis and came up with a coherent, two factors solution to political correctness.

One that looked like it was associated with what you might describe as the radical left, the interventionist radical left, and the other that was more associated with i would say, just left leaning liberalism. And then looked at the personality predictors and personality and cognitive predictors of both of those they weren't that highly correlated. Interestingly enough, I mean that was partly because we used an extraction technique that decreased

the correlations. But you could extract out two quite separate sets of political belief and yeah, trade agreeableness was a good predictor, which was quite interesting because it hadn't showed up that power trade agreeableness and being female as well,

which was also quite interesting. I mean, we're in a situation now where it isn't obvious how men and women are going to cooperate politically, because it does look like our differences are intrinsic differences in personality and interest might divide us quite radically politically, and so God only knows how that's going to play out on the political realm. Yeah,

it's really interesting think about. And I've trying to like wrap my head around the real practical applications when I look at the data and then try to like, and I like to hear your thoughts on what you think the percentage of this could really be impactful. So, like, I looked at a figure the other day of the overlap of the distribution and compassion and there is in the general population we're not talking about, like it's a

totally different plant. You know, seventy percent overlap in the bfas that you co created with Colin but and so in that paper, where Colin looked at the gender differences in the different Big ten Compassion did have the largest gender difference, But if you look at the actual graph, you know, you see like seventy percent, and of course that doesn't saything about at the extremes. Well that's the problem, you know, Well, this is something that people really don't understand,

and social scientists don't understand it well either, although we should. Like, there's two things that were not trained well I think in its social scientists. Is one is consideration of the tails, because the tails have disproportionate impact on behavior you're in

on political and economic outcomes. And then the other is the preto distribution problem, because most of us are taught that almost everything is normally distributed, and that actually turns out there's a lot of important exceptions to that, including creative achievement. It's not normally distributed at all. It's a standard brito distributing. Yeah, relatively small differences at the average level, and then walloping differences at the extreme. And then it's

the difference is at the extreme that determined behavior. So, for example, you know, there's good evidence that the difference between men and women with regards to interest in people versus things is about one standard deviation, which is the largest psychometric difference between the genders that's been reported as far as I know. And so then you think, well, okay, it still means that men and women overlap to a

large degree. But if you look at what determines someone's decision, for example, to go into a field like engineering, you probably have to be I wouldn't think, what percentage of the population are engineers? I bet it's no more than two percent take two to five. Yeah, yeah, yeah, So okay, so let's say one in fifty. Maybe it's one in twenty five, but whatever, it's something like that five of the population. So let's say to be an engineer, Well, you have to have a high IQ and you have

to be conscientious. But then you have to be interested in things. But you don't have to be just a little bit interested in things. You have to be really interested in things. And even if the average difference between men and women is only one standard deviation, which is still comparatively large, that could mean that virtually everybody who's really interested in things ends up being male. And that's exactly what you see. You see about a fifteen to

one preponderance of male engineers versus female engineers. And you know, you might say, well, that's sociocultural and can be aliorated, but the evidence doesn't support that at all because those differences maximize in the Scandinavian countries. Can you mind if I halt you there? Because you think really interesting? Okay?

And by the way, I want to thank you for I've watched like one hundred of your videos to prepare for this interview, so like, even if I don't away a group you, it helps clarify what in the hell I actually believe, So thank you for being so authentic in your opinions. I totally believe in quality of opportunity, right, And it seems like what really irks you is when people call for equality of outcome. That that's really where what you're infuriate is a better way, because I know

how dangerous it is. It's unbelievably dangerous. People have no idea what they're messing with when they mess with equality of outcome. Well, and then to have a nuanced discussion about it, let's say, because that's what we should do. It's like, Okay, the data indicate more and more strongly that there are significant differences between men and women and a variety of dimensions, and more importantly, that those differences expand as cultures become more egalitarian. Okay, so then that

opens up an avenue of political questions. It's like the first political question would be the first observation should be we better accept that as fact, because it actually seems to be grounded in very serious science. And the scientists who discovered this were by in the opposite direction. It wasn't what they were happy to find. No one expected it. Okay, but let's take it at face value just for the sake of argument, and say, all right, now this opens

up a minefield of political questions. The first is, so, for example, let me take a pro diversity stance just for a minute, even though it hurts my heart to do so. So it looks like if we allowed naturalistic sorting to take place merely as a consequence of people's express choices, that all of the elementary school teachers would end up being women a lot. Yeah, well, so it's going to be there, and it already is the vast

majority of them. But if the sorting continues unabated, that's likely to increase that increasingly it is what it is, but we don't know what to do about that from a sociopolitical perspective. Now, you know, hypothetically we could enforce equity of outcome equality of outcome, but it would be extremely costly, it would require a tyrannical effort on the part of the government, and there would be all sorts

of unintended negative consequences. Now, those might be consequences that we're willing to bear, but we don't want to move into this under the presupposition that the differences that we're trying to eradicate are only socio cultural in nature, because clearly they're not. And you'd hope that we would get to the point where we could actually have an intelligent discussion about we don't know what to do about this, say that's the thing, but you need a proposal what

to do about it. In one of your videos that I wanted to talk to about because you actually made a concrete In one of the videos that I watched, you made a very specific argument. You said, I think that we should eliminate poverty, that we should eliminate unnecessary suffering, you know, give everyone a relative sort of baseline of income. But then after that as the next stage, we should sort of allow the free market to sort of like allow people to then express you still stand by that

way you said that video about their function of the state. Well, I don't know, because it's so complicated, Like, I don't I certainly don't think that we should runs headlong into the provision of a universal basic income because the probability that that will have radically unintended consequences is unbelievably high. So I think one of the things that would probably do, especially among unemployed hopeless people, is increase their access to

drugs like oxycontinent opiates. See. The problem with the left wing view of improving economic equality is the left wingers are so obsessed with the economic side of inequality that they don't pay enough attention to the cultural side of inequality. So, if you're down at the bottom of the economic pyramid, the fact that you don't have enough money is a big problem, but it's only one of many serious problems

you have. And I would say an equally serious problem is that you don't have anything productive, engaging and meaningful to do with your time. And the problem with that is that you know, I don't know if you know this or not, but it's pretty easy to get rats that are isolated in a cage singly to be addicted to cocaine. You can do it very rapidly. But it's almost impossible to get rats in a naturalistic environment addicted

to cocaine. That's really interesting, it is. Yeah, well there was There were ethologists slash behaviorists that studied rats in their natural environment, and they're quite a bit different than the genetically modified three quarter body weight starved single lab

rat existing alone in the cage. Rats are social creatures, you know, so you think, well, yeah, yeah, Well, if you were sitting alone in prison, yeah, and somebody and offered you endless access to cocaine, it's like the probability that you'd take it is extremely high, but if you have something better to do, then it's low. The problem we're going to have to deal with is more like the provision of meaningful activity to people who are being

displaced by large scale socioeconomic transformations. And that's not a matter of merely redistributing income. Do you know the video I'm talking about where you talk about the function of the state. Yeah, I think I was at a political convention in Canada about five years go. You know, I've done work on what are called like, I've done work on giftedness. I've don work on because of the learning disabilities. Trying to the equality of opportunity is what I'm fighting for.

That's what I'm flighting and in terms of aligning it with the science as well. You know, it's a beautiful thing for me when they're not a post. When there's the truth and the helping someone are you know, the same thing. You know, that's a beautiful thing, right, Yeah, So this is an interesting question, is like what could the function of the state optity be to help to make sure that there's a quality of individual expression. I

guess that's what we're talking about here. Well, that's that is a fundamental question, I mean, million dollar question one of Yeah. Well, one of the things the state does quite effectively is invest in universally accessible infrastructure. So everybody benefits from safe, clean streets, right, everybody benefits from an active cultural meal. You Like, a city like Montreal is

a really good example that is extraordinarily culturally active. There's festivals going on there all the time, and a lot of them are outside, a lot of them are free everyone benefits from that. Education is a good, hypothetically a good place for the state to invest with regards to equality of opportunity, although it disproportionately benefits people who are on the upper end of the cognitive distribution. It's hard to escape from that. A. So that's a hard fier topic.

Oh yeah, that's for sure. Back to the intrinsic difference issue is like, we don't really know what the political impact is of the fact that men and women seem highly likely to sort themselves out into different occupations if we just allow them free choice, because no one has thought that. No one thought that was what was going to happen, you know. And the bloody radical leftists are fighting this like mad because they insist that all these

differences are sociocultural. But the problem is, it doesn't look like they are. Like all these politics and fractions, right, individual difference is what is what fascinates me. People are complex systems. Every one of us is a complex system of lots of personality, traits, motivations, et cetera. And you know, there are people who score and compassion regardless of whether

you're male or female. A lot of I score high inqussions I heard you say you score high on compassion in one of your videos, you know, when you went through the beefast. So it's not like we're saying, like, you know, you have to be female to be compassion.

It's funny. With the politically correct research we did, we did find that a lot of the predictive power, a lot of what was predicting affiliation with politically correct standpoint was trait agreeableness, but being female was an additional predictor. And that was really strange because most of the time, and I'm sure this is the case with the literature that you've investigated as well, most of the time, if you look at sex differences in a particular outcome, you

can get rid of them by controlling for temperament. But most of them look like we couldn't know there was an additional effective. There was an additional effect sex. Yeah. Did you look at the befast, Did you look at politeness versus compassion? Yes, we did, but I can't it's been a while since I reviewed the paper and I can't bring it to mind. Okay, I think it was

driven mostly by compassion if I remember correctly. Yeah, And it makes sense, you know, because I think that what's happening on the end of the spectrum, let's say, where political views are driven by compassion, is if compassion is primarily a dimension that's there to facilitate intense relationships between individuals and their dependence, which kind of looks to me like what compassion does is that so you know, you have compassion for an infant, or you have compassion for

someone who's elderly and unwell. If you're a very compassionate person, it's very easy to take the side of the downtrodden and to look for a perpetrator or cause, and lots of time that's extremely useful. Right, if you're taking care of an infant and the infant is in distress, the first thing you should be doing is scanning the environment for the cause and eliminating it. One unanswered question is, well, what happens when you scale up that personality attribute and

it starts to operate politically. See here's the thought for you. Tell me what you think about this. Yeah, I think that we have two traits that orient us in the social world. I think agreeableness orients us in small groups and conscientiousness orients us in large impersonal groups. And that the switch point, the point where you transition from an agreeable viewpoint to a conscientious viewpoint is is indeterminate. Way Is there sex difference on consciousness or males? High? And yeah,

a bit. No, women are a little more orderly and men are a little more industrious industrial. Well, yeah, I was gonna ask industrious in particular because Roy Balmeister made a similar you could link that to Roy Balmeischer's argument and what are men good for? I think that's the title of the book. He argues that that's the major sex difference. That it's not that like men or women

are better than each other. It's that, like, there have been different motivations in terms of how we want to help people, and a lot of men have tended throughout course of history to wanting to help, you know, like huge social networks, have huge social networks. And I wonder if that's a difference in exactly what you're saying between Well, I think it might be. I think it might be. Well, look, human beings are strange. First of all, there's no animals

for conscientiousness. Yeah, Oh, was that right? I've never seen one. Oh that's so interesting, you know, it's funny I was trying with Colin the other day. He said that they just found a correlation between the salience network and conscientiousness, and that's not really well evolved in other animals. That's that's just interesting. So look, if you think about it this way, if you think that, imagine that there's a

human niche that distinguishes us from animals. And I mean, obviously there is, but I mean that one of the distinguishing elements is that we can produce groups whose size exceeds that of our primate cognitive capacity. So, you know, I think it's Dunbar's work indicates that with human beings, our tribes tend to fractionate when they exceed about a group of about two hundred. But obviously we can produce groups that are much much larger than that that are functional.

But what that means is that those groups have to operate on principles that are outside of the networks that other primates would use to organize themselves socially. And I think that's where conscientiousness kicks in well. And if you look at what predicts performance in bureaucracies, it's conscientiousness. It's

not agreeableness. In fact, agreeableness is slightly correlated negatively with managerial performance, and so I think once a group exceeds the size where it's familiar, then you have to use a different ethical system to cope with it, and that's conscientiousness. And I think one of the problems with what's happening to us politically right now is that we're trying to implement agreeableness as a political trait, and I don't think it functions well in large groups. I hear that argument.

I think sometimes some of the things that you are perceiving as relevant to the agreeables, to me, it might be actually something different. And let me elaborate what I mean. So I've done some research. I realized that there's no scale of pathological altruism. It's a construct that Barbara Oakley has written about. But I wanted to do systematic research on this. I think this is relevant to this conversation. Yeah, So I constructed a reliable and valid scale of pathological altruism,

and it is negatively correlated with agreeableness and compassion. We're not talking about it's in that domain. What did you find were the defining characteristics of pathological altruism? Okay, so we looked at grandiose narcissism versus vulnerable narcissism. I am so fascinated with that distinction. I don't think vulnerable narcism has got as much attention in the literature. We found aboutero point six point seven correlation between pathological altruism and

vulnerable narcissism. Okay, okay. Vulnerable narcissism is this They called it the psycholano. It's called a closet narcisism, where it's like, you have these grandiose fantasies inside and you have entitlement, so you score score sky high on entitlement. However, you don't present yourself that way. You present yourself as really vulnerable. So we find that the grandiose narsism vulnavaris, they score just as high on the Grandiose Fantasies questionnaire and entitlement subscripe.

What differentiates them is trait neuroticism. That's the thing that conferentstrates them. So, whereas grandiose narisism is court with much lower neuroticism, vulnerable narcism almost perfect correlated with high neuroticism, almost perfectly correlated. Oh, how correlated One of my collaborators who on that paper, he wrote another paper with the title Vold Narcissism is mostly just neuroticism. We're talking about if you do a structural model, we're talking literally almost

perfect correated. The only thing that additional variance that's explained is some antagonism, like I said, entitlement for instances. So it's a subset of highly neurotic people who also have developed a sense of entitlement, entitlement and as sort of interpersonal antagonism towards others. So we're not talking about Yeah, that's man, you guys are really onto something there. Oh great, great, Yeah, yeah,

I really think so. I mean, the question is whether or not you're just fleshing out neuroticism with those sorts of correlations, or whether you've got a subset of people in there who have taken neuroticism to the next step. I don't think it's synonymous with neuroticism because most people who present themselves with high neurosism to the therapists, as you know, they are depressed, not like they have this grandiose fantasies and entitlement. Early developmental experience. It seems to

be a really interesting moderator we found. We found that those who were told that they're worthless in childhood or that were actually in some sense did experience some sort of trauma in their childhood that seems to actually correlate with later on. And I think that, you know, from a clinician perspective, you know, we want to help these individuals integrate healthily in a society, and I think maybe

that's where your responsibility argument comes into play. Well. The union idea behind that was that those grandiose fantasies were compensations, right, and that within them there was the seeds in some sense of a developmenttal pathway. So if someone is oppressed and put down continually and they developed compensatory fantasies, the fantasies are you can think about them as the manifestation of that imagination network trying to lay out an alternative

mode of being. But then those fantasies have to be subject to critical analysis, so they don't become dwelling places or reasons for bitterness in relationship to the world. We just came full circle in the sense that in a ways it's like the start of this discussion, you know, like this interplay, dynamic interplay between imagination and then rationale. Ye, Well the problem with those fantasies, Well, the problem with

those fantasies is that they're not decomposed. So like, if you're dealing with someone that someone clinically and they have these fantasies, then you might think about them as a starting place for how they could modify their life. So the fantasy is saying, you know, the fantasy is serving as a counterpart to the painful reality. The painful reality

is downtrodden neuroticism. The fantasy is as far on the other end of the scale as like it balances the pathology by putting something on the other end of the scale that's equally far away. Then you have to help the person take a critical look at the fantasy and start to make it a reality instead of just a fantasy, and to lay out a strategic plan for doing that exactly exactly, you know, I mean, look, we were all human,

Like I personally went through a stage. I think when I was in my early twenties, I was so insecure, like I wanted to be like academic. I wanted to like that was my way of proving that I was smart and that wasn't healthy, you know, and like I gues, but I also get, you know, the value of when I really decided to take some of these grandiose fantasies I had of like being academy, and I say, well, look, you know, I'm going to just take it out of my head and I'm going to like work really freaking

hired me. I was a special education as a kid because I did an auditory disability, but when I was really young, at one point, I just took one hundred percent responsibility for that situation. Okay, so you took the right route out of that that those fantasies, Like you can think of those fantasies as part of the attempt by the mechanism that generates creativity to lay out a

pathway forward. The problem is is when people dwell in the fantasies and dwell on the fantasies instead of instead of breaking them down into a strategic plan and realizing them, which is what a good therapist should help someone with. Absolutely, I'm sure you've done that in you're practice. You're in practice over twenty years or la. Yeah, yeah, I'm sure. Yeah. Well, that's also what happens with our future authoring program, because what we really ask people to do in the future

authoring program is to generate a comp andory fantasy. Right. No, we say, well, lay out how your life could be improved. Then imagine what your life would be like if all those improvements took place. But we don't stop with that. Then we say, okay, now subject that to some critical analysis, decompose it, make it into a strategic plan, break it down into things you would do day by day and

week by week so they can become realizable in the world. Yeah. Yeah, I mean that's so sensible, right, I mean it's like, by the way this paper and I get sent to you, it's actually under a review right now. We have a whole section on the quinol complications of these findings, and you know we talked about like missing. I'd like to see it. Roy Baumer is sort of a really interesting book on I think it's the best sort of real honest assessment of evil. Have you read it? Evil Inside

Human Violence and Cruelty? No, I haven't read it yet. No. Now, something here talks in there because he wants to get a full understand of all the causal forces of what we call evil, and something in there he talks about is he makes it so clear that responsibility is not the same as culpability, Like responsibility not the same thing as well, look at the situation you just describe, Like, let's say that you are high in neuroticism and you were subject to bullying of a real sort and trauma

when you were a kid. Well, it's not like you're culpable for that. Correct, but correct, you need to take responsibility for it, because well, who else is going to right? You know, as a scientist, if we want to truly truly understand a phenomenon, we need to understand all of the causal factors, and we need to do that as objectively as possible. That's not saying that we're not allowed to have compassion, Like I have immense compassion. I want

to make the world a better place. I know you want to make the walt a better place as well. But I think I can like kind of separate those things at different times and then try to kind of thoughtfully think through how we can integrate this. Yeah, i'd like to see the paper. I'm very interested in what you're doing. I'd like to see both of them. The one on the default network and also the one on

vulnerable narcissism. I really do think that's associated with the sorts of things that I've been talking about relationship to the school shooters, for example, because they develop Grandio's compensatory fantasies and then act them out in the most pathological way. Good talking with you, Good talking to you. Thanks for your time, and let me know when this goes up and I'll tweet it in all of that sounds good. Have a good day. Okay, okay, I see ya. Thanks

for listening to the Psychology Podcast. I hope you enjoyed this episode. If you'd like to react in some way to something you heard, I encourage you to join in the discussion at the Psychology podcast dot com. That's the Psychology Podcast dot com. Also, please add our rating and review of the podcast on iTunes. Thanks for being such a great supporter of the podcast, and tune in next season for more on the mind, Brain, behavior, and creativity. Ye