Machiavellianism and Orange Cheeto
I refuse to say Orange Cheeto’s real name. A superstitious part of me thinks this will give him more power or something. Another part of me is just sick of seeing it and hearing it. Also, I like Harry Potter, so let’s treat this like the real life Voldemort scenario it feels like.
There have been a few critiques going around lately that we must stop psychoanalyzing Orange Cheeto or that it is unfair to do so. It’s even reached meme status. From what I can gather, most of these arguments center on the following ideas (this is a list of what I’ve seen):
- It’s mean to people who suffer from mental illness to discuss the possibility that Orange Cheeto has one. Presumably because he is fascist, a white supremacist, hateful, or any number of undesirable negative things. It’s unkind to suggest a relationship here.
- We should stop analyzing Orange Cheeto because he clearly does not suffer from mental illness or abnormal psychology. “How could he?” they say. He’s rich, white, and powerful. Having a mental illness is assumed to be incompatible with these things or it robs him of his agency, “he knows what he’s doing.”
- Another form of this argument is a belief about people and morality in general. People who operate a fascist political system or leadership style are typically mentally healthy (at least, they’re not abnormal enough to be ill). They’re just “bad people” to the core obsessed with domination. This version gives people the full agency of their actions. The assumption is that if we start characterizing someone’s psychology as abnormal, it will lead to a slippery slope of “not guilty due to insanity” and these bad people will get off the hook (somehow I think that would happen differently).
- Personality disorders (psychopathy, narcissism) and Machiavellianism are not mental illnesses.
- Leadership cannot or should not be explained in psychological terms, but in political, economical, or historical terms.
- Associating mental illness with Orange Cheeto is “ableist.” I’ll be honest this one stumps me. I think they mean people calling Orange Cheeto “crazy” or “psycho” is ablelist language. Another version of the ableist argument is that attributing Orange Cheeto’s negative qualities to mental illness or impairments is unfair because it might be for some other reason (his obsession with domination and power). Strangely, I think people making this latter argument are almost paradoxically defending his mental state?
- Associating mental illness with Orange Cheeto perpetuates stigma, especially for people suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. Another version of this argument is that people suffering from NPD will not seek treatment because this association with Orange Cheeto creates more stigma. Let’s also pause to consider the likelihood of someone with narcissistic personality disorder seeking treatment.
- It’s unscientific armchair psychology, especially when talking heads are participating. It takes years to diagnose properly.
- It hurts politicians feelings. Yes, WIRED even argued that. Fair enough, if you are concerned about Orange Cheeto’s feelings. We go high?
- It says less about Orange Cheeto (the leader) than it does about the American public (the followers).
Some of these assumptions and arguments are laughable, and some are just distractions from real issues. I admit that as someone who has studied psychology formally for six years and informally for many years beyond that, I have mixed feelings toward this limit on our discourse.
Besides finding a general social hypersensitivity to trying to explain the “why’s” of people, there is an intense professional pedigree. Only certain ones can do it, for real. This is an ethical matter and one I understand more than the dogmatic response of “we shouldn’t go there.”
A lot of these arguments are based in the assumption that it is unethical and scientifically inaccurate to discuss narcissism, personality disorders (sociopathy, psychopathy), or other related abnormal mental qualities of behaviors without being a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist. That assumption would be true if you are trying to diganose Orange Cheeto. It’s true that people with no background in psychology or talking heads on TV would do more damage than good in this area.
In my field of organizational psychology, it can be difficult to quantify the professional parameters around this. It is possible to study and practice leadership psychology (applied, non-health related psychology) without being a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist and without doing harm to the public.
If you are trying to understand a leader, how they used influence to come into power, the relationship to their followers, and the effects of their leadership, you can discuss this in its proper context. There is a discussion that gets lost in all of this: that leadership can be considered from multiple disciplines, of which psychology is one.
In my leadership studies, I learned a quote that stuck with me:
Political science determines who shall lead. Psychology determines who should.
I am wondering why we would want to censor discussions on leadership psychology related to Orange Cheeto when it comes to the question or whether or not he should lead. These discussions enlighten us to the possibility that he has a streak of Machiavellianism and the “Dark Triad” personality traits in his leadership style. It is also helpful to look at Orange Cheeto as a critical case study overtime, as we will see if he continues to exhibit these traits and behaviors.
It may be considered unscientific to do this. No one has given him a personality test. We are simply observing his behavior from afar and from testimony of those around him. For example, here is an item from the Mach-IV test, which measures these traits. How would you expect Orange Cheeto to behave in this context?
The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.
It’s not a surprise that a politician would behave in this way. Except Orange Cheeto seems to do so in the extreme. He lies and deceives habitually. He attempts to manipulate people to get ahead and he’s convinced he’s good at it. It’s also helpful to understand the gendered nature of Machiavellianism and the Dark Triad personality traits (narcissism and psychopathy), which are more common in masculine leadership styles.
Machiavellianism is related to outcomes of manipulation, cheating, and counterproductive work behaviors (i.e. not getting anything done or actively harming progress). Further interesting, is the detrimental relationship between Machiavellianism on their follower’s performance, cynicism, and emotional exhaustion. Any of this sound familiar?
Ironically, given the concern over psychology “reducing agency” to Orange Cheeto’s actions and harming the political process, studies describe leaders who use Machiavellian styles as agentic. This means assertive, aggressive, competitive, of their own free will, and masterful (i.e. they know what they’re doing). Of course, but we must always couch this in the possibility that it’s an act or that our observations could be wrong. Only time will tell.
The Macheviavellian leadership style is associated with agentic, masculine stereotypes and there is reason to believe that men choose this style of influence because they are more socially conditioned to behave this way or more likely to be viewed as successful at it. Remember all of the people who viewed Orange Cheeto as a successful businessman and still do?
Seeing how we just went through an election cycle that posited hypermasculinity (and its prototypical leadership style) against the first female presidential candidate, why wouldn’t we be having this dialogue? Sensitivities aside, now is the time.
I understand this is a delicate topic, and therefore I firmly believe that we stop associating everything in psychology (the study of the entire human experience) with psychiatry (the medical model used to diagnose and treat). I believe we can do this while recognizing differences and abnormalities in leadership styles, personality, cultural conditions, power relationships, and other disciplines.
I believe we must understand why our culture encourages these traits and leadership styles in men, that Orange Cheeto is potentially an important case study, that these types of leadership styles are detrimental and therefore should not be upheld in our society. I believe that we need to understand how Orange Cheeto influences people in order to combat him and we as followers have to help our country, maybe humanity as a whole, evolve beyond this regressive way of influencing people.
In conclusion: leadership psychology is not psychiatry. It’s not mean to people who suffer from mental illness to explain that Orange Cheeto is probably using a manipulative, self-serving leadership style that will likely hinder us. We have to understand Orange Cheeto to move forward. We ought to discuss the possibility of a detrimental leadership style to determine if Orange Cheeto should lead. Also let’s keep this Orange Cheeto thing going because it’s helping my outlook a little.
