When I feel uncertain, I instinctually go into disdain. I judge the people I’m surrounded by, deeming them silly, incapable and banal. I ask myself questions like “What am I even doing here?”. I withdraw from the group, and get lost in my head.

This is called arrogance. It’s my go-to defence mechanism, a response to perceived threats — when under threat, grasp for power! This is the polar opposite of fawning (people pleasing),^[1] where people protect themselves by playing along — when under threat, relinquish all power!

There are curious symmetries here. Both fawning and arrogance involve pretending like you’re fine. When fawning, you go into excessive agreeableness. When going into arrogance, you get excessively disagreeable. Fawning is about relinquishing control. Arrogance is about grasping for control. I think of fawning as degenerate submissiveness, and arrogance as degenerate dominance.

I call them degenerate because they emulate healthy dominance dispositions in an unhealthy way. To explain in more detail, I need to run you through my views on dominance and hierarchies.

On Dominance and Hierarchies

Dominance is a loaded topic. In “Impro” (page 39), Keth Johnstone writes:

I should really talk about dominance and submission, but I’d create a resistance. Students who will agree readily to raising or lowering their status may object if asked to ‘dominate’ or ‘submit’.

Like Keith, I think of dominance in terms of the status you ‘act out’. Leadership and hierarchies ground themselves in our dominance instincts.^[2] In my eyes, there’s a large overlap between leadership, dominance and high status.

Leadership, to me, is about setting direction. It’s about evaluating where things are going, and course-correcting if there’s a need for it. Furthermore, proper leaders ‘hold the narrative’, making sure that everyone knows where they are going, why they are going there, and who they are in relation to the group. Leadership is about shaping the local social reality. Leadership is vital for groups to function. Without a leader to cohere social reality, there is no ‘group’ to talk about.^[3]

I’m quite good at this kind of leadership. Whenever I enter a new context, I try to figure out how things work, and how I can help out. If there’s a ‘leadership vacuum’, with people feeling lost and confused, my instinct is to step in and direct. This is usually appreciated.

Mirrored Group Dysfunction

I’m pretty sure that my arrogance and my leadership inclinations are connected. In both cases, I shape social reality. When I step up and lead, I create a structure that helps the group cohere. When I step into arrogance, I craft a group dynamic where I’m in a ‘superior position’ — seeking safety by grasping for power.^[4]

Skilled leadership takes the needs of the group into account. The aim is to improve the situation for everyone involved. Arrogance plays on the same dominance instincts in a dysfunctional way, sucking energy from the group rather than improving things. Given how vital proper leadership is to group functioning, it’s an affront to hog the ‘dominance bandwidth’ of a group with a self-serving agenda.

In much the same way, fawning behaviour is damaging to groups. Normal follower behaviour involves constant evaluation, giving feedback or rearranging the power structure if someone is leading unskillfully. In healthy groups, there are checks and balances to the power dynamic, limiting the leader’s action space to pro-social behaviours.^[5]

Fawning behaviour robs the group of this vital feedback. Instead of challenging problematic directions, fawning people play along. When the entire group does this, you get what is known as “groupthink”, a term coined by sociologist William H. Whyte.

A group stuck in groupthink lacks necessary feedback/critique, with the members all agreeing on how excellent things are going. A group like this is stuck in delusion, disconnected from the real world. Groupthink is the driver of great fuck-ups, including things like US strategic decisions during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Relevant quote:

"No warships anchored in the shallow water of Pearl Harbor could ever be sunk by torpedo bombs launched from enemy aircraft."^[6]

Takeaways

Do I know anything new after all this analysis? Maybe?

It’s interesting to connect personal coping strategies with group dysfunction. It clarifies the core problem of arrogance: the ego-centric focus. Having separated arrogance from healthy leadership, I now see that it’s not the leadership part that needs to be done away with. My ability to step up and lead is a gift to be honoured.

In the past, I’ve tried compensating for arrogance by ‘taking less space’ (practising acting with lower status).^[7] Being able to act low status is a useful tool, but not something I want to make permanent. I want to find ways to work with arrogance while preserving the gifts I can give in a leadership role.

I want to target the core problem: clinging to a high-power frame when I’m feeling insecure. I have done a shit ton of honesty practice, and know how to ask for help once I catch myself in arrogance. Unfortunately, this sometimes takes some time. I want to reduce resistance to asking for help. I do this by practising asking for help and feedback. One example of this is asking friends to refer clients for philosophical guidance, which has been a great success.

For the ‘mirror image’ problem of people pleasing, a similar strategy might be useful. This strategy would be a mirror image of my arrogance-strategy, and go something like this: Start by practising acting dominant/assertive, expanding the range of status expressions you are comfortable with. Once you can act in high-status ways, challenge yourself to be assertive when the situation calls for it. This is especially relevant when you feel insecure. Groups you are part of will function much better if you set boundaries, express concerns and voice relevant feedback.^[8]

Some Concrete Ideas

Coping mechanisms can’t be reasoned away. Once we’ve figured out where we want to go, we need to figure out practical ways to train ourselves to get there. I’ve spent five minutes thinking of things to do. I’m sure you can figure out better exercises, more fit to your life. In that case, allow my list to serve as inspiration. Here’s my list:

• If you are Arrogant
  • Practice asking for help with things you struggle with. Admit that you’re having a hard time.
  • Ask your friends for opinions about your career, big decisions and similar.
  • Go do something you suck at, in a group setting. Choir singing? Brazilian Jui-jitsu? Get supported by the group and try to find mentorship.
  • Practice asking for support when you feel insecure. Detect insecurity by checking for arrogance. If you start judging the people around you, it might be time to open up and ask for help.
• If you are a People Pleaser
  • Say no to most requests you get over a week.
    • exceptions in extreme cases (someone dying etc)
  • Write a letter with suggestions for how your boss can improve their leadership.
  • Book a meeting and share the letter contents with your boss.
  • Practice disagreeing with others. Write a comment telling me how out of line I am.
  • Read Radical Honesty
  • Practice speaking up when you feel insecure. I don’t know what your subjective experience is when you go into people-pleasing (self-judgement?), but I think a good way out is to put up boundaries.

1. ^{^}

   Fawning is a huge problem when it comes to consent and boundaries, and you should know about it. From the outside, it’s hard to know if someone is happily in subspace or whether they are playing along as a coping mechanism. More info: https://www.charliehealth.com/post/is-fawning-a-trauma-response-what-you-need-to-know

2. ^{^}

   In “The Pragmatist’s Guide To Sexuality”, Simon & Malcolm presents an interesting idea: what if the human tendency to get turned on by dominance derives from an evolutionary contingency where sexual-mating-display instincts got exapted to drive dominance displays?

   This would incentivize dominance displays by connecting them to arousal.

3. ^{^}

   “Flat hierarchies” sometimes feature a dynamic shifting of the leadership dynamics, adapting to the situation at hand. At other times, there is a hidden power structure, usually featuring antisocial leaders hiding behind a pretence of equality.

   Peter N Limberg

   has written about this in his “Terrible Communities” series.
   
   Regardless, someone is weaving the narrative.

4. ^{^}

   I usually keep this in my head, thankfully. The worst consequence is usually me getting disconnected from the group.

5. ^{^}

   Usually, there’s some level of inertia, where a lack of common knowledge delays power upheavals. Regardless, the self-correction makes the power dynamics eventually consistent with pro-social aims.

6. ^{^}

   From “Groupthink : psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes”

7. ^{^}

   Being stuck in high status can be lonely, and also limiting.

8. ^{^}

   It’s a bit funny/meta that it’s the arrogant person telling people pleasers what to do.