Psychology Lecture: David G. Winter

>> WELCOME.
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THE FIRST OF OUR FOUR PRESENTATIONS
THIS YEAR IN THE PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT SPEAKER SERIES.
I'M DR. FRANK CONNER-- I AM THE DEPARTMENT HEAD,
AND I APPRECIATE SEEING ALL OF YOUR FACES,
AND I ALSO APPRECIATE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OFF IN SOME OTHER ROOM
AND I CAN SEE YOUR FACES, BUT I KNOW YOU'RE THERE,
SO I'M WAVING TO.
FEEL FREE TO WAVE BACK.
UM...
I WANT TO INTRODUCE TO YOU TODAY
OUR FIRST SPEAKER OF OUR FOUR PRESENTATIONS.
UM, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE OTHERS,
YOU CAN GO TO THE PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT WEBSITE.
THE NEXT PRESENTATION IS ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ANGER--
THAT'S IN DECEMBER.
WE HAVE ONE IN FEBRUARY, WHICH IS ON JUNGIAN PSYCHOLOGY.
AND THEN, WHEN WE HAVE ONE IN APRIL,
WHICH IS ON SPORTS PSYCHOLOGY,
PARTICULARLY MOTIVATION AND HOW IT APPLIES TO BOTH SPORTS AND LIFE.
I AM VERY PLEASED TO INTRODUCE YOU TODAY TO TODAY'S SPEAKER,
DR. DAVID WINTER.
DR. WINTER IS A PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.
DR. WINTER DID HIS UNDERGRADUATE WORK AT HARVARD
AND HE DID HIS PhD WORK AT HARVARD.
THOSE ARE ALL VERY FINE CREDENTIALS,
BUT WHAT I THINK WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT
IS THAT HE ACTUALLY GRADUATED FROM GRAND RAPIDS SOUTH.
HE IS FROM GRAND RAPIDS AND HE HAS COME HOME TODAY
TO SHARE WITH YOU AROUND THE POLITICS OF PSYCHOLOGY.
(applause)
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FRANK.
IT IS A GREAT PLEASURE TO COME BACK TO GRAND RAPIDS
AND AN HONOR TO BE INVITED
TO BEGIN THIS YEAR'S SERIES OF PSYCHOLOGY TALKS.
YOU SEE MY TITLE-- "CAN POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY
"HELP US KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING WHEN WE VOTE?"
AND I HOPE THAT ALL OF YOU, IF YOU'RE 18 AT LEAST,
WILL BE VOTING IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
SO, YOU MIGHT ASK, "WHAT IS POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY?"
AND THE ANSWER IS KIND OF A FUZZY ONE.
IT'S AN INTERDISCIPLINARY FIELD OBVIOUSLY--
A LITTLE BIT OF PSYCHOLOGY,
A LITTLE BIT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE,
BUT SOME ANTHROPOLOGY, SOME HISTORY, SOME SOCIOLOGY,
EVEN A LITTLE BIOLOGY
GETS MIXED INTO POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY.
HERE'S A FORMAL DIAGRAM.
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL STRUCTURES HAVE EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUALS,
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE STUDY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME,
INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES AFFECT SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL STRUCTURES, SO WE STUDY THAT, TOO.
COGNITIONS, EMOTIONS, MOTIVES, SOCIAL IDENTITIES,
GROUP PROCESSES-- ALL OF PSYCHOLOGY.
BOTH AS AN EFFECT OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL STRUCTURES,
AND AS A CAUSE.
NOW, ANOTHER WAY OF DEFINING THE FIELD IS TO TALK ABOUT
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ASK.
WHAT MAKES A GOOD LEADER?
WHAT ARE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES OF WAR AND OF PEACE?
HOW DO WE LEARN ABOUT POLITICS?
WHAT DETERMINES HOW WE VOTE?
WHY DO WE VOTE?
HOW DO PEOPLE DEVELOP "LEFT" OR "RIGHT" ATTITUDES
AND IDEOLOGIES?
WHEN AND WHY DOES NATIONALISM APPEAL TO PEOPLE?
WHAT CAUSES TERRORISM?
THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE QUESTIONS
THAT POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS TRY TO ASK AND ANSWER.
(coughing) NOW...
TODAY'S TOPIC, "HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING WHEN WE VOTE,"
RAISES A FUNDAMENTAL, OVERRIDING QUESTION
THAT RUNS ALL THROUGH POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY, WHICH IS,
"HOW DO YOU MEASURE THE PERSONALITIES
"OR THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LEADERS?"
YOU HAVE TO DO IT AT A DISTANCE.
THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE FOR ALL OF THE TRADITIONAL INSTRUMENTS
OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH.
I CANNOT WALK INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND ASK THE PRESIDENT
TO FILL OUT A SURVEY OR GIVE HIM A RORSCHACH TEST
OR ASK HIM TO RELAY A DREAM THAT I CAN INTERPRET.
AND A LOT OF THE REALLY INTERESTING PEOPLE ARE DEAD
AND NOT ACCESSIBLE TO PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH.
SO, WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TODAY IS SOME OF THE WAYS
THAT WE CAN DESCRIBE AND PROFILE
THE PERSONALITIES OF LEADERS-- LIVING AND DEAD--
AT A DISTANCE, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO IT AT A DISTANCE.
NOW, ONE WAY WOULD BE TO SAY,
"GO BY THEIR PAST PERFORMANCE.
"ASSUME THE FUTURE WILL RESEMBLE THE PAST."
THE PROBLEM IS FOR--
LET US SAY A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES--
THERE REALLY IS NOTHING LIKE THE PRESIDENCY.
IT'S NOT A SITUATION THEY HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED BEFORE.
IT'S NOT LIKE BEING GOVERNOR.
IT'S NOT LIKE BEING A SENATOR.
AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT LIKE BEING THE HEAD OF BAIN CAPITAL
OR THE SALT LAKE CITY OLYMPICS.
IT'S A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION.
AND SO, EVERY NOW AND THEN,
WHEN WE TRY TO PREDICT FROM THE PAST,
WE REALLY GO QUITE WRONG.
FOR EXAMPLE, CHESTER ARTHUR...
UH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE 1880s,
WAS REALLY A POLITICAL HACK--
A REPUBLICAN POLITICAL HACK WORKING, I BELIEVE,
IN THE NEW YORK CITY CUSTOMS HOUSE
WHEN HE WAS PUT ON THE REPUBLICAN TICKET
AS JAMES GARFIELD'S VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
IN THE 1880 ELECTION.
GARFIELD WAS ASSASSINATED-- ARTHUR ASSUMED THE PRESIDENCY,
AND ACTUALLY, HE WAS A PRETTY GOOD PRESIDENT--
RELATIVELY HONEST.
AND ANOTHER SURPRISING PRESIDENT WAS HARRY TRUMAN,
WHO ROSE TO POWER THROUGH THE--
ER, ROSE TO THE SENATE
THROUGH THE VERY CORRUPT KANSAS CITY POLITICAL MACHINE,
ALTHOUGH HE HIMSELF WAS VERY HONEST.
UM, BECAME PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES AFTER ROOSEVELT DIED,
A FEW MONTHS INTO ROOSEVELT'S FOURTH TERM,
AND WITH VERY LITTLE EXPERIENCE--
OFTEN CALLED "THE LITTLE MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE"--
GUIDED THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE CHANGES
AND THE PERILS OF THE EARLY POSTWAR YEARS.
HARRY TRUMAN, A SURPRISINGLY GOOD PRESIDENT.
SO, PREDICTING FROM THE PAST DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK.
IF YOU WERE TO TRY TO PREDICT RICHARD NIXON
FROM RICHARD NIXON'S PAST,
YOU WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM, WHICH IS,
"WHICH NIXON WOULD YOU PICK?"
IN COLLEGE, HE DESCRIBED HIMSELF
AS "VERY LIBERAL, ALMOST POPULIST."
THEN, AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS IN THE LATE 1940s,
HE MADE HIS INITIAL POLITICAL NAME
BY HUNTING DOWN COMMUNISTS...
AS PART OF THE HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE.
THEN, WHEN HE BECAME PRESIDENT, HE CAPPED HIS POLITICAL CAREER
BY TOASTING MAO ZEDONG IN BEIJING'S GREAT HALL OF THE PEOPLE.
SO, WHICH NIXON PREDICTED WHICH NIXON?
AND OF COURSE, FINALLY, HE RESIGNED IN DISGRACE
AFTER THE WATERGATE SCANDALS.
THE PAST DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO PREDICT
WHAT A PRESIDENT IS GOING TO BE LIKE.
WELL, ANOTHER APPROACH IS TO RELY ON INTUITION,
AND MANY POLITICAL LEADERS BELIEVE THEY HAVE GREAT INTUITIVE ABILITY
TO UNDERSTAND OTHER POLITICAL LEADERS.
FOR EXAMPLE, PRESIDENT BUSH SPEAKING OF HIS FIRST MEETING
WITH THE SOVIET PRIME MINISTER--
SORRY, THAT'S MY GENERATION TALKING--
THE RUSSIAN PRIME MINISTER, VLADIMIR PUTIN.
HE SAID, "I LOOKED THE MAN IN THE EYE.
"I FOUND HIM TO BE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND TRUSTWORTHY.
"WE HAD A VERY GOOD DIALOGUE.
"I WAS ABLE TO GET A SENSE OF HIS SOUL."
WELL, I THINK THAT BUSH'S SUBSEQUENT EXPERIENCES
WITH PUTIN MAY HAVE TEMPERED THAT SENSE
THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE MAN.
I THINK, IN THE END, THERE HE IS LOOKING PUTIN IN THE EYE.
(audience laughing) UM...
NOW, WHAT ABOUT BARACK OBAMA?
>> (a few people) YEAH...!
>> HE'S A MYSTERY TO MANY PEOPLE.
THERE IS A HARD-CORE, SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO STILL,
IN THE FACE OF ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY,
BELIEVE HE'S MUSLIM.
AND EVEN SOME SUPPORTERS AREN'T SO SURE.
HERE'S A 30-SOMETHING LIBERAL DEMOCRAT
WHO SAID OF OBAMA IN 2008,
"CIVIL AND THOUGHTFUL AND OPTIMISTIC,
"ACTUALLY AWAKE AT THE WHEEL"...
BUT THREE YEARS LATER, "AN AWFUL NEGOTIATOR
"WHO GIVES AWAY THE FARM BEFORE THEY ASK FOR IT.
"A CHUMP."
UH...
WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?
WHAT IS HE REALLY LIKE?
WELL, I TRIED GOOGLING "BARACK OBAMA IS..."
AND...
HE'S AMONG THE BEST PRESIDENTS,
HE'S THE WORST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME,
HE'S THE FIRST NERD PRESIDENT,
HE'S "NO JAMES MADISON"... (audience chuckling)
HE'S LYNDON JOHNSON ON STEROIDS. (audience chuckling)
"IS SARAH PALIN THE NEXT BARACK OBAMA?"
THAT WAS A DATED REFERENCE-- A FEW YEARS AGO.
AND "IS CHRISTINE O'DONNELL THE NEXT SARAH PALIN?
"IS BARACK OBAMA THE MESSIAH?"
THESE ARE ALL FROM GOOGLE.
"IS OBAMA AND THE ANTICHRIST?
"BARACK OBAMA IS YOUR NEW IPAD.
"BARACK OBAMA IS YOUR NEW BICYCLE?"
VERY CREATIVE ANSWERS BUT NOT PERHAPS VERY HELPFUL.
UH, A FEW YEARS AGO--
WHAT, A YEAR OR SO INTO OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY--
I WAS INVOLVED IN SURVEYING SOME PEOPLE
FROM A LARGE MIDWESTERN CITY WITH A DIVERSE ECONOMY,
WHICH WILL REMAIN UNIDENTIFIED.
THESE PEOPLE WERE LARGELY WHITE, MOSTLY MARRIED,
FAIRLY CONSERVATIVE, IN THEIR LATE 60s AND EARLY 70s--
THE GROUP THAT DEMOGRAPHICALLY IS PROBABLY THE MOST ANTI-OBAMA
IN THE COUNTRY, AND...
THE ANSWERS WERE ALL OVER THE PLACE.
THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT OBAMA WAS BRIGHT,
ARTICULATE, GLAMOROUS, AND CALM...
BUT BEYOND THAT, PEOPLE SEEMED TO ENDORSE A WIDE VARIETY
OF DIFFERENT, OPEN-ENDED IMPRESSIONS.
UH, NOW, TO SOME EXTENT,
THESE VARIED BY THEIR POLITICAL ORIENTATION.
BUT STILL, THE RANGE,
THE DIVERGENCE IS PRETTY SURPRISING.
DISAGREEMENT IF YOU WERE A "BLUE STATE" TYPE--
UM, "INTELLIGENCE AND CHARACTER."
BUT MORE CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE SAID,
"HE'S A POLITICAL CHAMELEON...
"TRUSTWORTHY...
"DISHONEST...
"ABILITY TO LEAD...
"LEADERSHIP IS WEAK...
"TRYING TO IMPROVE OUR COUNTRY...
"CARES NOTHING FOR THE COUNTRY...
"IN TUNE WITH COMMON MAN...
"DOESN'T CONSIDER HOW OTHERS FEEL...
"MATURE DECISIONS...
"INDECISIVE...
"SECOND ONLY TO LINCOLN...
"UNQUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT...
"OPEN...
"NOT LISTENING...
"LIKABLE, WELL-INTENTIONED GUY...
"ARROGANT AND A NARCISSIST."
WELL, I'D LIKE TO TRY TO UNRAVEL
A LITTLE BIT OF THIS TODAY.
UM, PARTLY BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATING
HOW ONE CAN TALK ABOUT PERSONALITY AT A DISTANCE,
WITHOUT DIRECT ACCESS,
WHICH IS ONE OF MY MAIN INTERESTS
IN THE INTERDISCIPLINARY FIELD
OF POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY.
NOW, FOR CONVENIENCE, I LIKE TO THINK OF PERSONALITY
AS BEING DIVIDED INTO FOUR PARTS,
OR AT LEAST THIS IS A CONVENIENT WORKING CONCEPTION,
BY WHICH I MEAN THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST FOUR
FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT KINDS OF ELEMENTS
OF PERSONALITY.
UH...
TEMPERAMENT AND TRAITS, COGNITIONS, MOTIVES,
AND SOCIAL CONTEXTS.
NOW, YOU MAY BE SURPRISED TO HEAR ME PUT "SOCIAL CONTEXTS"
AS PART OF PERSONALITY RATHER THAN AS THE FIELD
ON WHICH PERSONALITY OPERATES,
BUT I THINK SOCIAL CONTEXTS ARE BOTH.
OBVIOUSLY, MY CONTEXTS, YOUR CONTEXTS,
ARE THE FIELD WHERE WE LIVE OUR LIVES,
BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT ALL OF THE CONTEXTS
OF OUR LIVES,
WE COME TO EMBODY THEM.
THEY LIVE ON IN US.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
I AM A WHITE MALE OF A CERTAIN AGE,
RAISED IN GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN,
WENT TO SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL,
WAS A MEMBER OF CENTRAL REFORMED CHURCH,
DUTCH BACKGROUND-- OF COURSE-- WENT TO COLLEGES,
HAVE BEEN AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN FOR 25 YEARS,
AND SO ON AND SO FORTH,
AND I HAVE A FAMILY-- BOTH MY PARENTS
AND GRANDPARENTS AND MY CHILDREN, MY WIFE.
ALL OF THESE CONTEXTS...
CONTINUE TO LIVE ON IN ME.
THEY HAVE MADE ME WHAT I AM.
THEY ARE A PART OF MY PERSONALITY.
THEY'RE ALSO THE FIELD ON WHICH MY PERSONALITY PLAYS ITSELF OUT.
AND SO, I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER SOCIAL CONTEXTS
AS PART OF PERSONALITY,
AND I'M GOING TO BEGIN THERE WITH BARACK OBAMA.
NOW, EACH OF THESE FOUR ELEMENTS
HAS ITS OWN SOURCE OF DATA.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, SOCIAL CONTEXTS--
WE CAN GET THAT INFORMATION FROM STANDARD SOCIAL SCIENCE
AND BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES.
IF WE ARE TO TALK ABOUT THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS
OF BARACK OBAMA-- FIRST, CULTURE--
I'M GONNA WORK DOWN FROM THE MACRO TO THE MICRO, SORT OF--
CULTURE AND ETHNICITY.
AND FOR OBAMA, THAT'S ACTUALLY RATHER COMPLICATED.
HE HAS MANY AND VARIED CULTURAL AND ETHNIC CONTEXTS.
OBVIOUSLY, HAWAII, WHERE HE WAS BORN
AND WHERE HE SPENT A LOT OF HIS EARLY YEARS,
BUT INDONESIA, WHERE HE SPENT SEVERAL YEARS.
HE IS AFRICAN-AMERICAN,
AND HE'S ALSO AFRICAN--
THAT IS TO SAY HIS FATHER WAS AFRICAN.
BUT HE IS OF MIXED RACE...
AND HE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WORKING
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
THESE ARE ALL DIFFERENT CULTURAL ETHNIC CONTEXTS,
AND THEY'RE ALL A PART OF BARACK OBAMA,
AND THEY ALL "LIVE ON," SO TO SPEAK, IN HIM.
THEN, THERE IS SOCIAL STRUCTURE,
WHICH IS THE POLITE WAY OF SAYING, "DO YOU COME FROM
"A PRIVILEGED GROUP OR DO YOU COME FROM AN OPPRESSED GROUP?"
AND I THINK THAT IN THE UNITED STATES EVEN TODAY,
IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT RACE IS A DIMENSION OF STRATIFICATION
THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR TEND TO HAVE COME
FROM A LESS ADVANTAGED BACKGROUND...
OR IN THE WORDS OF OBAMA'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS,
"THE BACKGROUND OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE ENDURED
"THE LASH OF THE WHIP AND PLOWED THE HARD EARTH."
AND HISTORY IS A PART OF OUR SOCIAL CONTEXTS.
BOTH OUR PERSONAL HISTORY,
BUT OUR COUNTRY'S AND OUR CULTURE'S HISTORY.
THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED BEFORE WE WERE BORN LIVE ON
THROUGH THE TRANSMITTED MEMORIES OF OUR ANCESTORS.
GENDER.
BARACK OBAMA IS MALE,
AND THAT, OF COURSE, INTERACTS WITH CULTURE.
HE'S AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN MALE, AND THAT IN TURN HAS CERTAIN,
VERY SPECIFIC MEANINGS AND OPPORTUNITIES
AND PERHAPS LIMITATIONS
IN AMERICAN CULTURE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
SO, HISTORY AND CULTURE AND GENDER
ALL INTERACTING.
AGE.
BARACK OBAMA IS...
I THINK 51.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN THE UNITED STATES?
IS THAT OLD OR YOUNG?
OR IN BETWEEN?
BUT IT MEANS SOMETHING.
AND THEN, GENERATION--
WHICH IS THE INTERACTION OF HISTORY AND AGE.
SO, BARACK OBAMA CAME OF AGE-- THAT IS TO SAY,
WAS YOUR AGE OR A LITTLE OLDER--
LATE TEENS, EARLY 20s--
WHEN YOU GO OUT INTO THE WORLD ON YOUR OWN FOR THE FIRST TIME,
RATHER THAN RECEIVING IT THROUGH YOUR PARENTS OR YOUR TEACHERS.
IN THE 1980s, WHAT WAS THAT LIKE?
WELL, HERE ARE SOME SYMBOLS OF THE 1980s.
THIS IS WHAT WAS HAPPENING WHEN HE CAME OF AGE.
THIS IS THE ERA THAT...
BECAME THE NORM OR THE DEFAULT
OR THE INITIAL SETTING OF HIS WORLDVIEW,
JUST LIKE THE 2012-- WHAT DO YOU CALL IT--
THE 21st CENTURY, SECOND DECADE--
IS BECOMING YOUR NOTION OF WHAT IS NORMAL,
YOUR DEFAULT SETTINGS.
FAMILY.
AND FOR BARACK OBAMA, IT'S ESPECIALLY COMPLICATED, UM...
AND DIVERSE.
HERE'S A CHART THAT THE "NEW YORK TIMES" DID
OF THE FIRST FAMILY.
AND THE ABSENT FATHER--
THE FATHER THAT HE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW--
THE FATHER THAT HE HAD DREAMS OF,
AND THE WIFE AND DAUGHTERS.
AND THEN, SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONS.
PUNAHOU SCHOOL IN HAWAII,
OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE IN CALIFORNIA,
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN NEW YORK CITY,
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL,
AND THE CHICAGO POLITICAL MACHINE--
THESE ARE ALL INSTITUTIONS
WHICH OBAMA PARTICIPATED IN
AND WHICH HAVE LEFT OF THEIR DEPOSITS,
THEIR PRECIPITATES... IN HIM,
JUST AS EVERY INSTITUTION THAT YOU HAVE LIVED IN
LEAVES SOMETHING IN YOU.
YES, THIS IS FORMER GOVERNOR BLAGOJEVICH,
NOW A CONVICTED FELON, AND THIS IS MAYOR DALEY.
(audience laughing)
OKAY, SO MUCH FOR THE ARRAY OF SOCIAL CONTEXTS
OF BARACK OBAMA,
AND ALL OF THIS INFORMATION IS PRETTY EASY TO GET.
A LOT OF THIS LIVES ON IN HIM.
NOW, LET'S TURN TO TEMPERAMENT AND TRAITS.
THIS IS THE PUBLIC, VISIBLE PART OF PERSONALITY.
THIS IS THE KIND OF ANSWER THAT WE GET WHEN WE SAY,
"WELL, TELL ME ABOUT SOMEBODY THAT I DON'T KNOW,
"AND WHAT KIND OF PERSON ARE THEY?"
AND WE USUALLY RATTLE OFF A FEW TRAIT NAMES.
THE BOY SCOUT LAW, FOR EXAMPLE-- TRUSTWORTHY, LOYAL,
COURTEOUS, KIND, ETCETERA, ETCETERA.
THOSE ADJECTIVES
TALK ABOUT THE GENERAL STYLE OF THE PERSON,
THE FIRST IMPRESSIONS.
AND PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE LEADER WELL
TEND TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU PRETTY GOOD ANSWERS
ABOUT THEIR TEMPERAMENT OR TRAITS.
ONE OF THE MOST...
COMMON TRAITS ASCRIBED TO OBAMA
IS HIS CALMNESS-- HIS LEGENDARY CALMNESS--
AND HERE HE IS JUST BEFORE BEING INAUGURATED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
WITH A KIND OF A-- I DON'T KNOW--
A ZEN LOOK ON HIS FACE.
I WISH I COULD BE THAT CALM FOR SOME OF THE THINGS IN MY LIFE.
UH, ON THE OTHER HAND--
OH, WELL, UM--
AND OBAMA CAN BE, I THINK, CONTRASTED IN HIS CALMNESS
TO THE-- LET'S SAY THE MACHO JOHN F. KENNEDY
OR THE COMPULSIVELY DECISIVE HARRY TRUMAN
WHO NEVER LOST ANY SLEEP ABOUT BOMBING HIROSHIMA WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS
OR THE MANY NEUROSES OF RICHARD NIXON
OR LYNDON JOHNSON'S ENVY OF THE KENNEDYS
AND HIS DEEP SENSITIVITY
ABOUT HIS POOR BACKGROUND IN TEXAS, WHICH...
OBAMA DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE THAT SAME KIND OF SENSITIVITY
ABOUT HIS OWN BACKGROUND,
MUCH OF WHICH WAS IN POVERTY AS WELL,
OR EVEN THE CALMNESS OF OBAMA'S RATHER REMARKABLY INCURIOUS
AND UNREFLECTIVE PREDECESSOR AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
SO, OBAMA IS CALM-- THAT SEEMS OBVIOUS.
THERE IS PERHAPS A DOWNSIDE TO OBAMA'S CALMNESS,
AND THIS IS FROM GARY TRUDEAU OF "DOONESBURY."
UH, "SIR...
"YOU NEED TO WORK ON THIS DAMAGING PERCEPTION
"THAT YOU'RE A BLOODLESS TECHNOCRAT.
"TAKE THE ECONOMY.
"IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE GETTING MUCH BETTER.
"PEOPLE ARE STILL SUFFERING.
"NOW, FORGET FOR A MOMENT WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT--
"HOW DOES IT MAKE YOU FEEL?" (audience chuckling)
AND THEN, THE PRESIDENT RESPONDS,
"IT MAKES ME FEEL LIKE THINKING."
"SIGH... WE'RE IN TROUBLE."
AND THAT, PERHAPS, IS THE DOWNSIDE OF SEEMING TOO CALM,
AND MAYBE THIS IS SORT OF WHAT THE FIRST OF THE DEBATES,
HOW IT PLAYED OUT--
THOUGH THIS CARTOON COMES FROM A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
OKAY, NOW, PSYCHOLOGISTS TEND TO AGREE
THAT THERE ARE FIVE OVERRIDING TRAITS
OR, IF YOU WILL, "SUPER TRAITS," OR FACTORS, IF YOU WILL--
FROM FACTOR ANALYSIS OF TRAITS--
THE SO-CALLED "BIG FIVE"-- EXTROVERSION OR ASSURGENCY,
AGREEABLENESS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS,
STABILITY-- OR ITS OPPOSITE, NEUROTIC--
AND BEING OPEN TO EXPERIENCE.
UH, LET'S GO DOWN THE LIST.
OBAMA IS STABLE, OR UNFLAPPABLE,
OR AT LEAST IT SEEMS THAT WAY,
ALTHOUGH HIS DIFFICULTIES WITH TRYING TO GIVE UP SMOKING
MIGHT MAKE US WONDER WHETHER HE'S REALLY QUITE AS CALM
AS ALL THAT.
HE SEEMS TO BE A LEADER, YEAH.
I MEAN, HE'S BECOME PRESIDENT.
HE WAS FAIRLY FORCEFUL.
AND YET, PERHAPS NOT SO FORCEFUL
AS MANY OF HIS FOLLOWERS WISH HE HAD BEEN.
UH, NOT AT ALL CLEAR-- IS HE AGREEABLE
OR IS HE REALLY KIND OF A REMOTE, COLD-BLOODED ELITIST?
DISAGREEMENT THERE.
GENERAL AGREEMENT, I THINK, THAT HE'S CONSCIENTIOUS.
GET THINGS DONE, DOES THE DIRTY WORK.
AND WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT THAT HE IS CURIOUS,
HE LEARNS FROM EXPERIENCE, HE'S OPEN TO EXPERIENCE.
SO...
UNCERTAINTY ABOUT SOME OF HIS TRAITS, BUT...
AGREEMENT ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHERS.
THE "OPEN TO EXPERIENCE"
IS THE SORT OF THING THAT HIGHER EDUCATION
TENDS TO GIVE YOU.
YOU ARE RIGHT HERE AND NOW IN THE PROCESS
OF BECOMING MORE OPEN TO EXPERIENCE, BY AND LARGE,
THAN YOU WERE WHEN YOU GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL...
BECAUSE OF HIGHER EDUCATION.
WE TRY TO TEACH YOU
TO RESPOND TO THREAT NOT BY RUNNING AWAY,
BUT BY APPROACHING AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT.
INSTEAD OF FIGHT, FLIGHT, OR FRIGHT--
THAT SYMPATHETIC NERVOUS SYSTEM COMPLEX--
WE TRY TO SAY TO YOU, "UNDERSTAND IT.
"DO NOT BE AFRAID OF WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW."
OKAY, LET'S MOVE ONTO COGNITIONS.
HOW DO WE JUDGE-- AND BY THAT, I MEAN BELIEFS...
WHAT'S THE WORLD LIKE?
OR VALUES-- "WHAT SHOULD THE WORLD BE LIKE?
"HOW SHOULD I ACT?
"WHO AM I?"
COGNITIVE FURNITURE, IF YOU WILL, OF OUR PERSONALITY.
AND WE TEND TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE THAT
FROM THE EXPLICIT ANALYSIS OF TEXTS.
THAT'S A FANCY WAY OF SAYING, "WE LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE SAY."
BECAUSE PEOPLE REVEAL THEIR BELIEFS
AND THEY'LL TELL YOU THEIR BELIEFS IF YOU ASK, USUALLY.
UH...
AND FROM THAT, WE CAN ESTIMATE
THEIR COGNITIVE STRUCTURES
AND THEIR SPECIFIC BELIEFS.
SO, ONE IMPORTANT STRUCTURAL VARIABLE IS--
"HOW COMPLICATED IS THERE THINKING?
"ARE THEY SIMPLISTIC OR ARE THEY COMPLEX?"
I THINK THERE'S A FAIRLY GOOD AGREEMENT--
(clearing throat) EXCUSE ME--
WITH RESPECT TO OBAMA, THAT HE IS A COMPLICATED PERSON,
THAT HE IS CAPABLE OF COMPLEX, ABSTRACT THINKING.
WHAT IS YOUR OPERATIONAL CODE OR, IF YOU WILL,
THE OPERATING PRINCIPLES?
NOW, THAT'S A KIND OF A POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY JARGON TERM.
WHAT IT MEANS IS TWO THINGS--
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF HUMAN SOCIETY?
IS THE WORLD BASICALLY A JUNGLE?
OR IS IT BASICALLY A COOPERATIVE PLACE WHERE OCCASIONALLY,
PEOPLE GET OFF ON THE WRONG FOOT AND FIGHT?
AND THEN, WHAT'S THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION?
SHOULD WE RELY ON REWARDS OR PUNISHMENT?
SHOULD WE RELY ON WORDS OR DEEDS?
HOW DO WE ACT?
WHAT'S OUR CODE FOR OPERATING IN THE WORLD?
AND SOME POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS HAVE SUMMARIZED
BARACK OBAMA'S OPERATIONAL CODE AS...
"TIMES ARE TOUGH, THINGS ARE HARD,
"THE AMERICAN DREAM IS IN JEOPARDY,
"BUT IF WE ALL WORK TOGETHER, WE CAN MAKE IT BETTER."
SO, THERE'S A NOTION OF DIFFICULTY...
INCLUSIVENESS...
IMPROVEMENT.
WHAT ABOUT AUTHORITARIANISM?
THAT'S A PERSONALITY VARIABLE THAT INCLUDES A KIND OF EMPHASIS
ON STRONG CONVENTIONAL MORAL CONSENSUS,
AND BEING AGGRESSIVE OR PUNITIVE TOWARD PEOPLE
WHO ARE PERCEIVED AS DIFFERENT.
YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF THE SO-CALLED "AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY,"
OR AS IT'S NOW SOMETIMES PHRASED,
"RIGHT-WING AUTHORITARIANISM."
UM, OBAMA SEEMS LOW-- MAYBE EVEN QUITE LOW-- IN THAT.
HE SEEMS TO HAVE A SENSE OF INCLUSIVENESS,
A SENSE OF NOT BEING HOSTILE TOWARD PEOPLE WHO ARE DIFFERENT.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN HIS INAUGURAL ADDRESS,
HE EVEN REFERRED TO "NONBELIEVERS"
AS WELL AS PEOPLE OF FAITH.
EXPLANATORY STYLE.
HOW DO YOU-- ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC OR PESSIMISTIC?
AND ACTUALLY, ONE OF THE WAYS WE MEASURE OPTIMISM
IS BY HOW PEOPLE EXPLAIN THEIR FAILURES.
IF YOU THINK OF YOUR FAILURES AS DUE TO SOMETHING INSIDE YOU
THAT IS PERMANENT AND NEVER GOING TO CHANGE,
WELL THAT'S A RECIPE FOR PESSIMISM.
BUT IF YOU EXPLAIN YOUR FAILURES EITHER BY SAYING,
"WELL, THERE WAS AN EXTERNAL CAUSE.
"THE TEST WAS TOO HARD.
"THE ASSIGNMENT WAS UNFAIR," OR A TEMPORARY CAUSE,
"WELL, I WAS NOT IN A GOOD MOOD THAT DAY,"
OR "I WAS HUNG OVER," OR, "I WAS TOO BUSY TO STUDY,
"BUT TOMORROW MIGHT BE DIFFERENT."
WELL THEN, YOU ARE LIKELY TO BE MORE OPTIMISTIC
AND PERSIST LONGER, AND SO FORTH.
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT OBAMA.
WITH RESPECT TO THE 2010 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION,
IT SEEMED LIKE HE WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THAT-- HE REFERRED TO HAVING BEEN "SHELLACKED."
BUT I SUSPECT THAT HE BELIEVED THAT IT COULD BE TURNED AROUND,
AND PERHAPS THE SAME EXPLANATION FOR THE FIRST DEBATE.
SO, WE'LL LEAVE THAT UP IN THE AIR.
AND THEN, SELF-CONCEPT.
NARCISSISM, GRANDIOSITY,
SOMETIMES ALTERNATING WITH ABASEMENT--
"I AM EITHER EVERYTHING OR I AM NOTHING."
POLITICS, PERHAPS, AS SOME KIND OF COMPENSATION
FOR SOME EARLY WOUND OR INJURY,
VERSUS ITS OPPOSITE.
I THINK OBAMA IS RELATIVELY LOW IN THAT.
WISDOM OR SENSE OF HUMOR.
AND I WOULD RATE HIM HIGH ON THAT.
OKAY, FINALLY,
WE COME TO THE FOURTH ELEMENT OF PERSONALITY-- MOTIVES.
AND THIS IS AN AREA OF PARTICULAR RESEARCH INTEREST FOR ME,
SO I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT FOR A WHILE AT SOME LENGTH.
MOTIVES INVOLVE GOALS, RATHER THAN STYLE.
IF TRAITS ARE THE ADJECTIVES OR THE ADVERBS OF PERSONALITY,
MOTIVES ARE THE GOALS...
"WHERE ARE YOU GOING?"
TRAITS-- "HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THERE?"
SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
TRAITS MAY INVOLVE A CONSISTENT ACTION
IN RESPONSE TO A PARTICULAR SITUATION.
MOTIVES INVOLVE GOALS,
AND A GIVEN MOTIVE MIGHT LEAD TO A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ACTIONS,
DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION.
SO, IMAGINE THAT YOU WERE QUITE HUNGRY,
AND THEN THINK ABOUT HOW DIFFERENTLY YOU WOULD ACT
IF YOU ARE AT HOME AT NIGHT,
STANDING IN FRONT OF YOUR OPEN REFRIGERATOR DOOR
WITH NOBODY ELSE LOOKING...
OR IF YOU WERE BEING TAKEN TO DINNER
AS PART OF A JOB INTERVIEW...
OR...
IF YOU WERE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY
WHERE YOU DIDN'T SPEAK THE LANGUAGE
AND THERE WERE NO ENGLISH MENUS,
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
I ACTUALLY HAD THAT EXPERIENCE MANY YEARS AGO IN CHINA.
I WAS LECTURING IN BEIJING,
AND I MISSED THE FACULTY DINING ROOM HOURS FOR DINNER
AND I WAS VERY HUNGRY, AND IN THOSE DAYS,
THERE WERE NOT A LOT OF RESTAURANTS WITH ENGLISH MENUS
OR ENGLISH-SPEAKING WAITSTAFF,
AND SO I DID SOMETHING I HAVE NEVER DONE BEFORE OR SINCE
IN A RESTAURANT--
I WALKED INTO A RESTAURANT, BECKONED TO A WAITER,
WALKED AROUND WITH THE WAITER,
AND EVERY TIME I SAW SOMETHING THAT LOOKED GOOD,
I POINTED TO IT.
THE RESTAURANT ERUPTED IN LAUGHTER,
BUT I GOT A VERY GOOD DINNER THAT NIGHT.
I WAS ADAPTING MY SPECIFIC ACTIONS
TO THE SITUATION
IN THE SERVICE OF THE MOTIVE.
SO, ACTIONS ARE NOT ALWAYS A VERY GOOD GUIDE TO MOTIVES.
PARTLY, A MOTIVE CAN LEAD TO A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ACTIONS,
BUT ALSO DIFFERENT MOTIVES MAY LEAD TO THE SAME ACTION.
SO, PERHAPS ALL OF YOU ARE STRIVING TO DO WELL HERE,
BUT FOR SOME OF YOU,
IT MAY BE AN INTRINSIC DESIRE FOR ACHIEVEMENT,
FOR OTHERS, YOU MAY WANT TO PLEASE YOUR PARENTS,
UM, ETCETERA, ETCETERA.
SO, HOW DO WE MEASURE MOTIVES?
MOREOVER, IF WE ASK PEOPLE,
THEY'RE GOING TO TELL US WHAT THEY THINK THEIR MOTIVES ARE
OR WHAT THEY THINK WE WANT TO HEAR,
AND SO, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET IF WE ASK
IS THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THEIR MOTIVES...
OR THEIR PUBLIC PRESS RELEASES ABOUT THEIR MOTIVES.
MOTIVES MAY BE REPRESSED OR UNCONSCIOUS, AS FREUD ARGUED,
BUT THEY MAY ALSO BE JUST THINGS WE DON'T THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN.
WE KIND OF LIVE OUR LIFE AND WE DON'T REALIZE THE ACTUAL GOALS
THAT WE'RE PURSUING.
WE MAY THINK WE'RE STUDYING HARD,
WHEREAS IN FACT WE SPEND A LOT MORE TIME ON FACEBOOK,
FOR EXAMPLE.
SO, WE OFTEN MEASURE MOTIVES--
UH, WE THINK OF THEM, RATHER, AS IMPLICIT.
THAT IS, THEY'RE NOT EXPLICIT,
THEY'RE NOT THE SORT OF THINGS PEOPLE CAN TELL YOU ABOUT,
BUT WE LOOK AT THE THEMES THAT EMERGE
IN THEIR SPEAKING OR THEIR WRITING.
AND SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST
WHERE YOU SEE A PICTURE, AND YOU WRITE OR TELL A STORY ABOUT IT,
AND THEN ANOTHER PICTURE, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH,
UH, IS A WAY OF MEASURING IMPLICIT MOTIVES.
AND THE SAME MEASURES, THE SAME SCORING SYSTEMS,
CAN BE APPLIED TO ANY IMAGINATIVE TEXT--
UM, A NOVEL, A SHORT STORY, A POLITICAL SPEECH,
AN INAUGURAL ADDRESS, GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS,
A COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT, AND SO FORTH.
SO, WHAT MOTIVES ARE THERE?
WELL, A LOT OF RESEARCH HAS FOCUSED ON THREE.
ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION-- THAT IS A CONCERN WITH EXCELLENCE,
WITH SUCCESS IN COMPETITION, WITH INNOVATION.
DOING WELL, DOING BETTER THAN.
DOING SOMETHING UNPRECEDENTED.
BEING THE FIRST IN THE WORLD TO DO SOMETHING.
AFFILIATION-- A CONCERN WITH WARM, FRIENDLY RELATIONS.
EMPHASIS ON UNITY-- "WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.
"WE ARE ALL ONE."
POWER-- A CONCERN WITH HAVING IMPACT OR AFFECTING OTHER PEOPLE--
THEIR EMOTIONS OR THEIR ACTIONS.
OR A CONCERN WITH REPUTATION AND PRESTIGE,
WHICH IS KIND OF LIKE...
IS TO POWER WHAT MONEY IN THE BANK IS TO SPENDING.
IT'S A WAY OF BANKING POWER, PRESTIGE.
NOW, I SAID THESE ARE THREE MOTIVES,
AND I'D RATHER THINK OF THEM NOT AS THREE SEPARATE ENTITIES,
BUT AS THREE DIMENSIONS OF MOTIVATIONAL SPACE.
WE OFTEN THINK OF POWER IN A VERTICAL SENSE-- BEING "ON TOP."
ACHIEVEMENT AS FORWARD-BACKWARD,
AND AFFILIATION AS NEAR-FAR.
SO, THERE REALLY IS AN INDEFINITELY LARGE NUMBER OF MOTIVES
YOU CAN IMAGINE COMING FROM THE ORIGIN--
A FUSION OF POWER GOING UP,
BUT ALSO AFFILIATION GOING OUT TOWARDS YOU.
AND SO, IMAGINE A DIAGONAL FROM THE ORIGIN HERE...
GOING UP AND OUT.
THAT WOULD BE A COMBINATION OF POWER AND AFFILIATION.
UH, PARENTAL NURTURANCE WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE.
CLEARLY, IF YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RAISING SOMEONE--
IF YOU WANT TO NURTURE THEM, TO TAKE CARE OF THEM--
YOU REALLY DO HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING AN EFFECT
ON THEIR BEHAVIOR AND EMOTIONS.
PARENTHOOD IS NOT A HANDS-OFF TASK.
AT THE SAME TIME, ONE HOPES, PARENTS LOVE THEIR CHILDREN.
AND SO, THEIR POWER IS TEMPERED BY AFFILIATION,
AND ULTIMATELY BY A DESIRE THAT THE KIDS GROW UP
AND ACT ON THEIR OWN AND TAKE WING.
AND SO, THE POWER A PARENT HAS OVER A CHILD IS VERY OFTEN,
WE HOPE, SELF-LIMITING AND KINDA TERMINATES.
ONE CAN IMAGINE COMBINING POWER
WITH THE OPPOSITE OF AFFILIATION-- OR REJECTION--
AND THEN, YOU HAVE AGGRESSION.
"I WANT TO CONTROL, I WANT TO HARM,
"I WANT TO HAVE IMPACT ON PEOPLE THAT I DON'T LIKE, ON ENEMIES."
AND SO, HOSTILITY AND REJECTION.
SO...
THERE'S AN INDEFINITELY LARGE NUMBER OF MOTIVES
THAT REPRESENT DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS
OR DIFFERENT FUSIONS
OR, IF YOU WILL, DIFFERENT VECTORS
OF THESE THREE DIMENSIONS,
IF THAT'S A HELPFUL WAY OF THINK OF IT,
RATHER THAN THE THREE SEPARATE MOTIVES.
I HOPE IT'S HELPFUL.
UH...
YEAH, OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON HERE.
HERE'S A BRIEF SUMMARY OF ABOUT THREE OR FOUR DECADES
OF RESEARCH ON THESE THREE MOTIVES.
ACHIEVEMENT EXPRESSED IN VERBAL IMAGES
INVOLVING IN EXCELLENCE OR SUCCESS IN COMPETITION.
NOT ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
NOT "ARE YOU STRIVING TO BE EXCELLENT,"
BECAUSE YOU'LL PROBABLY TELL ME, "OF COURSE I AM."
BUT RATHER, DO THESE IMAGES OCCUR
SPONTANEOUSLY AND NATURALLY
IN YOUR OPEN-ENDED THINKING
AND ALSO WRITING DOWN OF YOUR THOUGHTS.
UH, PEOPLE WHOSE VERBAL IMAGES
ARE HIGH IN EXCELLENCE REFERENCES
TEND TO TAKE MODERATE RISKS, TEND TO USE FEEDBACK,
THAT IS TO SAY THEY MODIFY THEIR PERFORMANCE
ON THE BASIS OF RESULTS...
SOMETIMES CHEATING IF NECESSARY.
YOU COULD THINK OF CHEATING AS SIMPLY A WAY OF,
"IT THIS WAY DOESN'T WORK, I'LL TRY THAT WAY."
UH...
THEY TEND TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN BUSINESS,
PARTICULARLY AS ENTREPRENEURS...
AND YOU CAN SEE WHY, BECAUSE THEY TAKE MODERATE RISKS,
NOT EXTREME RISKS, NOT SURE THINGS.
THEY TEND TO BE RATIONAL AND COOPERATIVE IN NEGOTIATION,
AND THEY TEND TO SEEK HELP FROM TECHNICAL EXPERTS,
SO THAT'S THE ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVE.
AFFILIATION-MOTIVATED PEOPLE TEND TO BE NOT ALWAYS FRIENDLY,
NOT ALWAYS NICE AND COOPERATIVE.
WHEN THEY FEEL SAFE, YES, THEY'RE VERY FRIENDLY.
BUT WHEN THEY ARE THREATENED, WHEN THEY THINK,
"WELL, I'M SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE DIFFERENT FROM ME
"OR WHO MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME OR WHO MAY DISLIKE ME,"
THEN AFFILIATION-MOTIVATED PEOPLE CAN GET VERY PRICKLY
AND DEFENSIVE, EVEN HOSTILE.
SO, THE ATMOSPHERICS OF THEIR IMMEDIATE SITUATION
ARE MUCH MORE INFLUENTIAL FOR PEOPLE
HIGH IN AFFILIATION MOTIVATION.
SO, THEY MADE BE DEFENSIVE IF YOU THREATEN THEM.
AND THEY SEEK HELP FROM FRIENDS.
AND THEN, POWER-MOTIVATED PEOPLE--
PEOPLE WHOSE VERBAL IMAGES INVOLVE CONTROL
OR IMPACT OR INFLUENCE--
TEND TO BE GOOD LEADERS,
CAPABLE OF GENERATING HIGH MORALE
ON THE PART OF THEIR SUBORDINATES,
IF THEIR SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY IS HIGH.
BUT IF IT'S LOW, THEY TEND TOWARD A COMPLEX
THAT I CALL "AGGRESSIVE IMPULSIVITY."
DRINKING, MULTIPLE DRUG USE, SEXUAL EXPLOITATION,
VERBAL AGGRESSION, PHYSICAL AGGRESSION, ETCETERA.
SO, FOR POWER, IT MAY DEPEND ON WHETHER THAT POWER
IS TAMED OR UNTAMED.
THEY TEND TO BE VERY EXPLOITATIVE NEGOTIATORS.
THEY KNOW JUST WHEN TO DEMAND THEIR CONTRACT BE RENEGOTIATED.
AND THEY TEND TO SEEK HELP FROM POLITICAL EXPERTS.
OKAY, NOW, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACHIEVEMENT AND POWER,
WHICH AMERICANS VERY OFTEN CONFUSE--
I THINK RALPH WALDO EMERSON HAD IT RIGHT WHEN HE SAID,
"BUILD A BETTER MOUSETRAP"--
THAT'S A CLEAR ACHIEVEMENT IMAGE--
"AND THE WORLD WILL BEAT A PATH TO YOUR DOOR"--
THAT'S A CLEAR POWER IMAGE.
A PERSON HIGH ONLY IN ACHIEVEMENT
WANTS TO BUILD THAT BETTER MOUSETRAP
AND DOESN'T REALLY CARE WHETHER THE WORLD
EVER BEATS A PATH TO HIS OR HER DOOR.
THE POWER-MOTIVATED PERSON WANTS THE WORLD TO COME TO THEIR DOOR,
BUT NOT NECESSARILY WANTING TO BUILD A BETTER MOUSETRAP.
YOU CAN RENT SOMEBODY ELSE'S MOUSETRAP, OR STEAL IT.
OR YOU CAN TAKE A MOUSETRAP THAT REALLY ISN'T VERY GOOD
AND ADVERTISE IT AS THE BETTER MOUSETRAP.
ANYTHING TO GET THE WORLD TO BEAT A PATH TO YOUR DOOR.
OKAY, NOW, I SAID WE SCORE MOTIVES
BY LOOKING AT THE IMAGES,
AND THERE ARE VERY CAREFULLY DEFINED SCORING SYSTEMS
THAT I DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO INTO--
HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF SCORING A PASSAGE
FROM BARACK OBAMA'S 2009 INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
"HELPS" IS AN IMAGE THAT IS BOTH POWER AND AFFILIATION,
BECAUSE IT'S HAVING AN EFFECT ON OTHER PEOPLE
AND, IN THIS CONTEXT, HELPS FAMILIES FIND JOBS, ETCETERA.
IT'S A CONCERN FOR THEM.
IT'S, IF YOU WILL, GOOD HELP OR BENEFICIAL HELP.
"MOVE FORWARD" IS AN ACHIEVEMENT IMAGE.
"HOLDING SOMEBODY TO ACCOUNT" IS A POWER IMAGE.
"SPENDING WISELY"-- PRESUMABLY SPENDING WISELY
IS BETTER THAN SPENDING FOOLISHLY.
"REFORMING BAD HABITS" IS ANOTHER ACHIEVEMENT IMAGE,
BUT WE CAN ONLY COUNT ONE PER SENTENCE.
"RESTORE VITAL TRUST"-- HAVING AN EFFECT.
IF YOU'RE RESTORING SOMEBODY'S TRUST,
YOU'RE HAVING AN EFFECT ON SOME MENTAL PROCESS OF THEIRS.
AND TRUST ITSELF IS KIND OF AN EFFUSION OF POWER
AND AFFILIATION,
SO THERE'S AN AFFILIATION IMAGE
BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND THEIR GOVERNMENT.
SO, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW YOU CAN MEASURE MOTIVES
AT A DISTANCE FROM VERBAL OR WRITTEN TEXTS OF LEADERS
WHOM YOU CANNOT ASSESS DIRECTLY,
AND INDEED EVEN HISTORICAL LEADERS.
I COULD TALK ABOUT ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S MOTIVES AS EXPRESSED
IN HIS INAUGURAL ADDRESS, FOR EXAMPLE.
ALL RIGHT.
WHAT DO WE HAVE FROM BARACK OBAMA'S FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS?
SEVENTEEN ACHIEVEMENT IMAGES,
16 AFFILIATION, 33 POWER.
THOSE ARE RAW SCORES.
OBVIOUSLY, THE LENGTH OF THE SPEECH IS GOING TO AFFECT THOSE TOTALS,
AND SO, WE FIRST WE EXPRESS THEM
AS IMAGES PER THOUSAND WORDS,
AND WE HAVE 7.10, 6.68, AND 13.78.
AND YOU MAY ASK, "WELL, DOES THAT MEAN
"HE'S VERY HIGH IN POWER,
"BECAUSE THAT'S HIS HIGHEST SCORE?
"OR IS AFFILIATION REALLY HIS LOWEST SCORE?"
MAYBE ALL INAUGURAL ADDRESSES OF ANY PRESIDENT
WILL BE HIGH IN POWER
'CAUSE THAT'S SORT OF A POWER SITUATION.
AND SO, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO
IS TO COMPARE OBAMA'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS TO WHAT?
WELL, PERHAPS TO OTHER INAUGURAL ADDRESSES
OF OTHER U.S. PRESIDENTS,
AND MAYBE BECAUSE IF YOU GO BACK TO GEORGE WASHINGTON
AND LINCOLN AND CHESTER ARTHUR--
WELL, HE NEVER GAVE AN INAUGURAL, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
UH, MAYBE LIFE WAS SO DIFFERENT AND WORDS WERE SO DIFFERENT
AND "POL"S TALKED DIFFERENTLY IN THOSE DAYS,
SO LET'S JUST SAY OTHER 20th AND 21st CENTURY
AMERICAN PRESIDENTS.
HOW ARE WE GOING TO COMPARE?
UH...
YOU'VE ALL HAD STATISTICS, YOU'RE TAKING STATISTICS,
YOU SHOULD TAKE STATISTICS.
WE CAN STANDARDIZE-- THAT IS TO SAY WE CAN CONVERT THOSE SCORES
INTO STANDARD SCORES.
UH, HERE'S A DISTRIBUTION--
WE ASSUME THE MOTIVE SCORES ARE NORMALLY DISTRIBUTED,
WITH A MEAN OR AVERAGE,
AND WITH A STANDARD DEVIATION, AND ONE STANDARD DEVIATION
EACH SIDE OF THE MEAN,
INCLUDES ROUGHLY 68 PERCENT OF THE CASES,
IF IT'S NORMALLY DISTRIBUTED.
SO...
THE STANDARD SCORE IS THE RAW SCORE MINUS THE MEAN
DIVIDED BY THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE GROUP.
THIS IS A STANDARD SCORE OF 2.0,
A STANDARD SCORE OF -1.5.
SO, NOW WE CAN EXPRESS OBAMA'S SCORES
NOT AS JUST RAW IMAGES PER THOUSAND WORDS,
BUT IN RELATION TO OTHER 20th AND 21st CENTURY AMERICAN PRESIDENTS.
I DON'T LIKE DECIMALS AND I DON'T LIKE MINUS SIGNS,
SO I CONVERT THIS TO A MEAN OF 500
AND A STANDARD DEVIATION OF 100,
WHICH IS ROUGHLY WHAT THE S.A.T. AND G.R.E. EXAMS SCORES
ARE SCALED AS.
AND SO, THAT TWO STANDARD DEVIATIONS ABOVE THE MEAN SCORE
CHANGES FROM 2.0 TO 700,
AND THAT -1.5 CHANGES TO 350.
OKAY, EVERYBODY CLEAR ON STANDARDIZATION?
WHEN WE DO THAT, WE FIND THAT OBAMA
HAS AN EXTREMELY HIGH POWER MOTIVE SCORE-- 707.
THINK OF THAT AS A 707 SCORE ON THE S.A.T.
HE IS JUST ABOUT EXACTLY AVERAGE
ON ACHIEVEMENT,
AND A LITTLE ABOVE AVERAGE-- HALF THE STANDARD DEVIATION--
ON AFFILIATION,
COMPARED TO OTHER 20th AND 21st CENTURY AMERICAN PRESIDENTS.
STANDARDIZED SCORES ARE ONLY MEANINGFUL IN TERMS
OF THE PARTICULAR STANDARDIZATION GROUP
THAT YOU'RE USING.
UH...
HERE ARE THE SCORES OF THE LAST FOUR AMERICAN PRESIDENTS--
BUSH THE FATHER, CLINTON, BUSH THE SON, AND OBAMA.
NOTICE HOW THERE'S KIND OF A STEADY UPWARD PROGRESSION
OF POWER.
AFFILIATION SEEMS TO SEESAW,
AS DOES ACHIEVEMENT.
NOTICE HOW BUSH THE SON, LIKE THE FATHER,
IS HIGH IN AFFILIATION BUT ALSO VERY HIGH IN POWER
AND LOWER IN ACHIEVEMENT THAN THE FATHER,
ALTHOUGH THE FATHER WAS JUST ABOUT AVERAGE.
AND CLINTON WAS VERY HIGH IN ACHIEVEMENT.
OKAY.
NOW, HERE'S THE RESULT OF A DECADE OR SO OF RESEARCH
ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESIDENTIAL MOTIVES,
TAKEN FROM INAUGURAL-- FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESSES--
IN RELATION TO A VARIETY OF PRESIDENTIAL OUTCOMES.
UH, VERY QUICKLY-- POWER MOTIVATION IS ASSOCIATED
WITH HISTORIANS' RATINGS OF GREATNESS
OR OF MAKING GREAT DECISIONS.
THERE'S A KIND OF COTTAGE INDUSTRY AMONG HISTORIANS
OF THE PRESIDENCY ABOUT RATING PRESIDENTS,
AND THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL
AND FACTOR-ANALYTIC-BASED RATINGS.
TAKING JUST OVERALL GREATNESS...
IT'S RELATED TO POWER.
WHY?
WELL, NOTICE THAT POWER IS ALSO RELATED
TO BEING INVOLVED IN A WAR...
AND MAYBE THAT TELLS US SOMETHING ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP--
YOU HAVE TO BE A WAR PRESIDENT TO BE A GREAT PRESIDENT.
OR MAYBE IT TELLS YOU SOMETHING ABOUT HISTORIANS' BIAS--
WHAT IT IS HISTORIANS THINK OF AS "GREATNESS."
OR MAYBE ABOUT AMERICAN HISTORY AND WHAT AMERICANS LIKE.
NOTICE THAT ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION,
WHICH IS RELATED TO SUCCESS IN BUSINESS,
IS NOT AT ALL RELATED TO SUCCESS IN THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY.
AND WHY IS THAT?
WELL, THEY COME INTO OFFICE HIGH IN IDEALISM,
AS RATED BY HISTORIANS.
LOW-- NOT SIGNIFICANTLY--
BUT SLIGHTLY NEGATIVELY IN FLEXIBILITY.
SO, THEY BECOME PERHAPS FRUSTRATED.
AND SO, WHILE THEY'RE VERY ACTIVE,
TO USE SOME CATEGORIZATIONS
OF THE POLITICAL SCIENTIST DAVID BARBER FROM DUKE,
THEY'RE "ACTIVE NEGATIVE."
THAT IS TO SAY, THEY KEEP TRYING TO DO A LOT,
BUT THEY REALLY END UP FRUSTRATED
AND THEY SORTA KINDA HATE THE JOB.
WHEREAS POWER-MOTIVATED PRESIDENTS
ARE "ACTIVE POSITIVE."
THEY'RE VERY ACTIVE AND YOU HAVE THE SENSE THAT THEY REALLY DO
ENJOY THEIR WORK.
NOW, WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT NONE OF THE THREE MOTIVES
BY THEMSELVES PREDICTS GETTING ELECTED--
A PERCENT OF THE VOTE--
BUT WHAT DOES PREDICT THAT IS THE CONGRUENCE
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVES
AND THE MOTIVES OF AMERICAN SOCIETY
AT THE TIME OF ELECTION.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRESIDENT WHO FITS THE NATIONAL MOTIVE MOOD,
IF YOU WILL, TENDS TO BE ELECTED.
NOW, HOW DO YOU MEASURE THE NATIONAL MOTIVE MOOD?
ONE CAN ANALYZE TEXTS.
IT'S BEEN DONE WITH THINGS LIKE POPULAR PLAYS AND NOVELS
FROM THAT ERA THROUGHOUT 200 YEARS OF AMERICAN HISTORY,
OR IN A MORE MICRO SENSE,
YOU CAN TAKE THINGS LIKE JAY LENO'S MONOLOGUE
AT THE BEGINNING OF "THE TONIGHT SHOW,"
AS A KIND OF MOMENT-BY-MOMENT MEASURE OF NATIONAL MOOD,
AND IT WORKS EITHER WAY.
UH, HELP-- WHAT HAVE I DONE?
A COUPLE MORE FINDINGS.
PRESIDENTS HIGH IN POWER MOTIVATION
TEND TO HAVE ATTEMPTS MADE ON THEIR LIVES.
UH... I'M A LITTLE...
RELUCTANT TO MAKE SPECIFIC PREDICTIONS
ABOUT PRESIDENTS BEING ASSASSINATED
OR ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS,
BUT I DO NOTICE-- NOTICE THAT OBAMA WAS VERY HIGH IN POWER--
THAT THE NUMBER OF THREATS
THAT THE SECRET SERVICE HAS REPORTED
ON THE PRESIDENT LIFE HAS INCREASED SINCE HIS INAUGURAL.
AFFILIATION-- PEOPLE WHO LISTEN TO THEIR FRIENDS
TEND TO BE INVOLVED IN SCANDALS.
AND IF YOU'RE HIGH IN POWER AND AFFILIATION,
YOU TEND TO BE INVOLVED IN A SEX SCANDAL.
SO, HERE ARE SOME PREDICTIONS-- OR IF YOU WILL, POST-DICTIONS--
ABOUT OBAMA, BASED ONLY ON HIS MOTIVE SCORES.
AND SOME OF THESE MAY TURN OUT TO BE COLOSSALLY WRONG.
PREDICTIONS AREN'T ALWAYS RIGHT, BUT SOME OF THEM, I THINK,
ARE PRETTY GOOD.
HE WILL BE CHARISMATIC TO LARGE NUMBERS OF AMERICANS,
BUT STRONGLY DISLIKED BY OTHERS.
IN OTHER WORDS, POWER MOTIVATION IS ASSOCIATED
WITH ELICITING INTENSE EMOTIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE
AND FROM FOLLOWERS,
EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.
POLARIZATION, IF YOU WILL-- EMOTIONAL POLARIZATION.
LOVE HIM OR HATE HIM.
AND I THINK THAT MAY WELL BE TRUE,
BUT WE'LL SEE IN THE LONG RUN OF HISTORY.
OBAMA WILL BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE SCRIMMAGE OF POLITICS,
AND HIGHLY RATED BY HISTORIANS.
WE'LL SEE.
HE'LL ENJOY BEING PRESIDENT AND NOT BE FRUSTRATED
BY THE GRIDLOCK AND THE PROBLEMS OF POLITICS.
WELL, OF COURSE EVERY PRESIDENT IS INEVITABLY FRUSTRATED,
BUT NOT TO A DEBILITATING EXTENT.
THE U.S. MAY BE INVOLVED IN A WAR DURING THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY.
WELL, LIBYA PROBABLY WOULD ALREADY COUNT AS A WAR,
BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER POSSIBILITIES FOR WARS
THAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS
OR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME
TWO WEEKS FROM THIS PAST TUESDAY.
UH...
OKAY.
NOW, I TOOK THE SCORES OF OBAMA,
AND ONE OF THE GAMES YOU CAN PLAY,
IF YOU THINK BACK TO THE-- I HAVE UNTIL 2:30, RIGHT?
>> YEAH. >> OKAY,
AND WE'LL HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS, TOO-- YUP.
UM, ONE OF THE GAMES YOU CAN PLAY
WITH THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPACE
IS TO LOCATE PEOPLE AS A POINT IN THAT SPACE,
WITH AFFILIATION AS THE NEAR-FAR SCORE,
ACHIEVEMENT AS THE FORWARD-BACKWARD SCORE,
AND POWER AS THE UP-DOWN SCORE.
SO, EACH PRESIDENT
IS A POINT IN A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOTIVATIONAL SPACE,
AND YOU CAN-- WELL, YOU CAN COMPARE PEOPLE
BY CALCULATING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO POINTS--
THE POINTS THAT REPRESENT THEIR MOTIVATIONAL LOCATIONS.
I'M ONLY GOING TO DO TWO DIMENSIONS-- POWER AND ACHIEVEMENT-- HERE,
AND I'M GOING TO COMPARE OBAMA TO VLADIMIR PUTIN.
NOW, PUTIN'S MOTIVE SCORES WERE BASED ON SPEECHES,
AND THEY WERE STANDARDIZED ON A GROUP OF WORLD LEADERS,
NOT AMERICAN PRESIDENTS.
AND SO, OF COURSE, THE STANDARDIZATION GROUPS
ARE DIFFERENT, AND THAT MAY MEAN
THAT THE SCORES AREN'T EXACTLY COMPARABLE--
SO, THEY'RE MORE LIKE BIG SMUDGES
RATHER THAN CAREFULLY DEFINED POINTS.
WHEN WE DO THAT, AND THIS IS THE FIRST MAJOR USE I EVER MADE
OF THE PYTHAGOREAN THEOREM FROM 10th GRADE GEOMETRY--
UH, THE DISTANCE IS THE SUM OF THE SQUARED DISTANCES
ON EACH DIMENSION, ADDED, AND THEN THE SQUARE ROOT.
SO, YOU TAKE THE DISTANCE IN POWER
AND THE DISTANCE IN ACHIEVEMENT,
AND THEN YOU GET THE HYPOTENUSE,
THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO POINTS--
NOW GENERALIZE THAT TO THREE DIMENSIONS,
AND YOU SEE THAT THOSE TWO GUYS ARE LOOKING
IN SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
PUTIN MORE ACHIEVEMENT-MOTIVATED,
OBAMA MORE POWER-MOTIVATED.
IF YOU PLAY THIS GAME WITH AMERICAN PRESIDENTS,
YOU CAN SAY, "WELL, WHICH PRESIDENT DOES OBAMA
"MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLE?"
AND THE ANSWERS ARE TWO-- TRUMAN AND KENNEDY.
BOTH, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH,
PRESIDENTS WHO CAME TO POWER THROUGH LOCAL POLITICAL MACHINES,
BUT WHO THEMSELVES
SEEMED TO HAVE A RELATIVELY CLEAN REPUTATION.
THAT IS, THEY WERE NOT TARRED BY THE REPUTATION OF THE MACHINES
THROUGH WHICH THEY CAME TO POWER.
OKAY, NOW, I WANNA LOOK AT OBAMA OVER TIME,
AND SO I TAKE HIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF CANDIDACY SPEECH
BACK IN '07,
WHEN HE FIRST ANNOUNCED HE WAS GOING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT,
STANDARDIZED ON ALL THE OTHER DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES
WHO ANNOUNCED THAT YEAR.
BUT I'M NOT GOING TO USE STANDARD SCORES,
BECAUSE I'M JUST COMPARING OBAMA TO HIMSELF,
SO I'M GOING TO USE RAW SCORES INSTEAD.
UH, 12, ROUGHLY, POWER IMAGES PER THOUSAND WORDS,
AND THEN "AFF," THEN "ACH."
UH, THEN, HIS NOMINATION ACCEPTANCE SPEECH AT DENVER
IN AUGUST OF 2008,
HIS INAUGURAL, AND HIS FIRST TWO STATES OF THE UNION MESSAGES.
NOW, SO WHAT?
POWER'S ALWAYS THE HIGHEST, AFFILIATION GOES DOWN SLIGHTLY,
AND ACHIEVEMENT SHOWS A DRAMATIC INCREASE
FROM 2010 TO 2011.
UH, WHAT HAPPENED?
WELL, THE 2011 STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE
WAS DELIVERED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER THE SHELLACKING
IN THE 2010 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION.
AND SO, THIS WOULD BE A MATTER OF SOME CONCERN
IF YOU WERE AN OBAMA PARTISAN.
WHY WOULD IT BE A MATTER OF SOME CONCERN?
WELL BECAUSE, AS I SAID EARLIER, ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION
DOESN'T REALLY LEAD TO VERY GOOD OUTCOMES IN POLITICS.
ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION LEADS TO FRUSTRATION.
OBAMA CAME OFF FROM THE MIDTERM ELECTION BY SAYING,
"WELL, I'M GOING TO TRY HARDER, LET'S WORK TOGETHER."
BUT OF COURSE, THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS WAS DEDICATED--
IN THE WORDS OF THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE SENATE,
MITCH MCCONNELL-- HIS MAJOR GOAL WAS TO ENSURE THAT OBAMA
WAS A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT.
WELL, AGAINST THAT WALL, YOU CAN KEEP BANGING YOUR HEAD,
BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANYWHERE.
AND SO, NOTICE-- HERE IS A MEASURE OF PRESIDENTIAL CHARISMA
OR APPEAL, IF YOU WILL.
NOTICE IT'S RELATED TO POWER--
IT'S NEGATIVELY RELATED TO ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION.
(coughing) WHY?
WELL, HERE'S ROSS PEROT,
A VERY SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMAN AND ENTREPRENEUR--
SCORED HIGH IN ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION--
RAN FOR PRESIDENT 20 YEARS AGO.
"TIME" MAGAZINE SAID, "HOW WILL YOU GOVERN IF YOU'RE ELECTED?"
AND HE SAID, "WELL, WE TAKE THESE IDEAS TO THE PEOPLE,
"THE PEOPLE SAY, 'LET'S DO IT,'
"AND NOW WE HAVE A SYSTEM OUT OF GRIDLOCK
"AND A SYSTEM THAT WORKS.
"THAT'S THE PROCESS I'LL USE."
AND THAT IS MAYBE THE WAY YOU RUN A COMPANY
OVER WHICH YOU HAVE PRETTY COMPLETE CONTROL,
BUT IT'S A TERRIBLE RECIPE FOR POLITICS,
BECAUSE POLITICS DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, JIMMY CARTER'S CAMPAIGN AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF 1976,
"WHY NOT THE BEST?"
FOUR WORDS-- CLEAR ACHIEVEMENT IMAGE.
I CAN THINK OF SEVERAL ANSWERS TO "WHY NOT THE BEST?"
FIRST OF ALL, YOU NEED TO BE CONSISTENT
WITH YOUR PRIOR ACCUMULATED PROMISES.
YOU HAVE TO SAY TODAY WHAT YOU SAID YESTERDAY.
OTHERWISE, YOU ARE A FLIP-FLOPPER,
WHEREAS ACHIEVEMENT-MOTIVATED PEOPLE TEND TO VARY WHAT THEY SAY,
TEND TO VARY THEIR ACTIONS DEPENDING ON WHAT WORKS.
WELL, THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY A GOOD WAY TO ACT IN POLITICS.
YOUR FANS WILL HAVE THEIR SENSE OF BELIEF
AND TRUST IN YOU ERODED,
'CAUSE "WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS GUY STANDS FOR ANYMORE."
AND YOUR OPPONENTS, AS I SAID,
WILL JUMP ON YOU AND CALL YOU A FLIP-FLOPPER.
DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES HAVE A DIFFERENT NOTION OF WHAT'S BEST.
IF YOU'RE A HEAD OF THE COMPANY,
YOU CAN GET RID OF ANYBODY THAT DISAGREES.
BUT IF I'M...
JUSTIN AMASH,
THIRD DISTRICT IN MICHIGAN REPRESENTATIVE,
I MAY BELIEVE-- I PROBABLY SHOULD BELIEVE
IF I WANNA GET ELECTED AGAIN--
THAT IF IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THE THIRD DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN,
IT AIN'T THE BEST.
AND SO, THERE'S NOTHING A PRESIDENT CAN DO
AGAINST SOMEONE-- A CONSTITUENCY--
WITH AN INDEPENDENT BASE WHO HAS A DIFFERENT IDEA
ABOUT WHAT'S BEST.
UH, BESIDES, SOME PEOPLE IN POLITICS MAY NOT GIVE A HOOT
ABOUT "THE BEST."
THEY MAY ENJOY THE OPPOSITION, CRITICISM, AND ATTACK,
MITCH McCONNELL SAID, "I WANNA MAKE THIS GUY
"A ONE TERM PRESIDENT,"
WITH PERHAPS THE NOTION OF "AND I DON'T CARE WHAT ELSE
"MAY HAPPEN AS A RESULT."
SO, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COMPROMISE.
AND THAT MAY MEAN YOU'LL HAVE TO SELL OUT THE ONE BEST ANSWER.
THE BEST WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY COST TOO MUCH.
THEN, THERE'S SHEER BUREAUCRATIC INERTIA,
AND THE BEST IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE--
PEOPLE YOU DID NOT APPOINT, MAY NOT TRUST,
AND CAN'T GET RID OF.
SO, FOR ALL THESE REASONS I SUGGEST,
ACHIEVEMENT-MOTIVATED PRESIDENTS--
PEOPLE WHO GO AROUND SAYING, "WHY NOT THE BEST?"--
ARE GONNA DIE A LITTLE BIT EVERY DAY,
AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE UNHAPPY.
UM, AS OPPOSED TO POWER-MOTIVATED PRESIDENTS,
WHO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ENJOY THE SCRIMMAGE OF POLITICS.
SURE, THEY WANNA GET DONE THEIR GOAL,
BUT THEY ALSO ENJOY GETTING DOWN AND DIRTY
IN THE TRENCHES OF POLITICS.
SO, TO ILLUSTRATE MY POINT,
I HAVE SELECTED TWO VERY BIASED-- DELIBERATELY BIASED--
SETS OF PICTURES OF PRESIDENTS HIGHER IN POWER
THAN ACHIEVEMENT,
AND PRESIDENTS HIGHER IN ACHIEVEMENT THAN POWER,
USING THE STANDARDIZED SCORES,
AND SEE IF YOU CAN DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCE.
OKAY.
ACHIEVEMENT-MOTIVATED PRESIDENTS
TEND TO END UP FRUSTRATED.
THEY MAY CUT CORNERS LIKE NIXON.
THEY MAY EXHAUST THEMSELVES AND RUIN THEIR HEALTH
LIKE WOODROW WILSON.
THEY MAY TRY TO MICROMANAGE LIKE JIMMY CARTER,
AND IN 1979,
WHEN EVERYTHING SEEMED TO BE GOING WRONG AT ONCE--
THE ECONOMY, THE HOSTAGES IN IRAN--
HE WENT INTO SECLUSION AT CAMP DAVID,
CALLED IN EXPERTS, THEN CAME DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN
AND DELIVERED A SO-CALLED "NATIONAL MALAISE" SPEECH,
ALTHOUGH HE DIDN'T USE THE WORD "MALAISE."
UH, AND HE SAID, "WELL, THE GOVERNMENT IS INCAPABLE OF ACTION.
"SPECIAL INTERESTS, PARALYSIS, STAGNATION, A CERTAIN ROUTE TO FAILURE."
HE THEN SET A CLEAR GOAL FOR A NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY--
THREE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS,
NONE OF WHICH WAS EVEN TAKEN UP OR ENACTED BY CONGRESS.
THAT'S THE FRUSTRATION OF HIGH ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION
IN POLITICS.
IT'S GREAT FOR RUNNING A COMPANY,
BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T GET YOU VERY FAR IN POLITICS.
AND SO, THE QUESTION IS, "WHAT WAS OBAMA GOING TO BE LIKE
"IN HIS 2012 STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE?"
SO, ACHIEVEMENT BACK DOWN.
STILL HIGHER THAN BEFORE, BUT AT LEAST IT DIDN'T KEEP CLIMBING.
AND SO, ONE COULD PREDICT A COUPLE OF THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, THERE WILL NOT BE A SENSE OF MALAISE,
AND NUMBER TWO, THAT HE WILL COME OUT FIGHTING IN THE 2012 ELECTION CAMPAIGN--
A LITTLE BIT LIKE HARRY TRUMAN'S FAMOUS WHISTLE STOP TOUR
OF 1948.
UH, THAT'LL EXPLAIN THE SECOND AND THIRD DEBATES.
I HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR THE FIRST DEBATE.
WELL, I HAVE AN EXPLANATION,
BUT IT WOULD GET YOU INTO WHAT MY PERSONAL POLITICS ARE,
AND YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT.
WELL, MAYBE YOU WANT TO HEAR IT, BUT I SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT IT.
UH, SO...
NOW, YOU MAY-- WELL, YEAH.
IF YOU WANT TO COMPUTE A VULNERABILITY TO FRUSTRATION INDEX,
WHICH IS THE RATIO OF ACHIEVEMENT PER THOUSAND WORDS
TO POWER PER THOUSAND WORDS OVER TIME,
UH, I DON'T-- THIS IS HIGH,
BUT I THINK THAT IN ACCEPTING A NOMINATION,
IT'S NATURAL FOR ANY CANDIDATE TO WANNA LAY OUT A LOT OF GOALS
AND ACHIEVEMENTS AND SO ON.
SO, IT'S AROUND 0.5--
IT GOES WAY UP IN 2011,
BUT NOW PRETTY MUCH BACK DOWN IN HIS 2012 SPEECH.
SO, YOU CAN KIND OF CHART THIS AS A RUNNING INDEX
OF POTENTIAL FRUSTRATION.
NOW, YOU MAY HAVE BE SAYING, "WELL, THIS IS ALL VERY WELL,
"BUT PRESIDENTS DON'T WRITE THEIR OWN SPEECHES.
"ARE WE GETTING THE MOTIVES OF THE PRESIDENT
"OR OF THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECHWRITERS?"
OBAMA SPEAKS, BUT JOHN FAVREAU, AMONG OTHERS, WRITES.
AND HERE HE IS WORKING WITH OBAMA
ON THE STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE.
BUT ALL PRESIDENTS HAVE THEIR SPEECHWRITERS.
MY ANSWER TO THIS-- WELL, I HAVE THREE ANSWERS.
NUMBER ONE...
SPEECHWRITERS ADAPT TO THEIR CLIENT.
THEY ARE PICKED BY THE PRESIDENT,
BY A POLITICAL LEADER, BY THE CANDIDATE,
FOR THEIR ABILITY TO SAY WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO SAY
IN WORDS AND IMAGES
THAT FEEL COMFORTABLE FOR THE PRESIDENT...
ESPECIALLY FOR SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT
AS AN INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
UH, THE CLIENT-- THE PRESIDENT--
REVIEWS DRAFTS AND MAY ACTUALLY MAKE CHANGES.
IN THE KENNEDY LIBRARY IN BOSTON,
YOU CAN SEE A LATE DRAFT OF KENNEDY'S INAUGURAL.
SORENSEN'S WORDS BUT WITH KENNEDY'S HANDWRITING INSERTING IMAGES,
SOME OF WHICH ARE SCORABLE FOR MOTIVES.
AND FINALLY, I AM WILLING TO SAY
THAT MAYBE THESE SCORES AREN'T...
THE SCORES ONLY OF THE PRESIDENT INSIDE OF PRESIDENT'S HEAD,
SO TO SPEAK,
BUT THEY MAY BE A KIND OF COLLECTIVE OR GROUP MENTALITY,
OR THE SCORES OF THE COLLECTIVITY
THAT WE CALL THE PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION,
WITH THE SPEECHWRITER AS THE GUY WHO WRITES IT DOWN.
SO, EVERYTHING I'VE SAID ABOUT OBAMA'S MOTIVES
MAY WELL BE PHRASED
AS THE MOTIVES OF THAT LOOSE COLLECTIVITY
THAT WE CALL THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION,
OR THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION,
OR THE CARTER ADMINISTRATION, ETCETERA, ETCETERA.
IN ANY CASE, THE REAL TEST OF THESE NUMBERS IS,
"DO THEY PREDICT ANYTHING?
"AND IF THEY DON'T, WHO CARES?
"AND IF THEY DO, IS IT REALLY IMPORTANT
"WHETHER IT'S THE SPEECHWRITER OR THE PRESIDENT?"
NOW, PUTTING EVERYTHING I'VE SAID TOGETHER IN TWO WAYS,
UH, MOTIVES ARE ONLY ONE ASPECT OF PERSONALITY,
AND THEY INTERACT WITH ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF PERSONALITY.
SO, IF YOU COMPARE OBAMA AND HIS PREDECESSOR,
THEIR MOTIVE PROFILES ARE ACTUALLY KIND OF SIMILAR.
VERY HIGH POWER.
UH, AFFILIATION-- BUSH IS A LITTLE HIGHER,
BUT THEY'RE BOTH ABOVE AVERAGE, AND THEY'RE BOTH AVERAGE
OR BELOW AVERAGE IN ACHIEVEMENT.
BUT LOOKING AT OTHER ASPECTS OF PERSONALITY,
THEIR SOCIAL CONTEXTS ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
THE DIFFERENCES ARE IN PINK, THE SIMILARITIES IN WHITE.
UH, IN TERMS OF ETHNICITY AND CULTURE,
IN TERMS OF MONEY AND SOCIAL CLASS...
BOTH IVY LEAGUE EDUCATIONS, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH.
DIFFERENT PLACES THEY WERE REARED.
THEIR TRAITS-- BOTH PERHAPS EXTROVERTED,
BUSH PROBABLY MORE THAN OBAMA.
UH, OBAMA RELATIVELY MORE CONSCIENTIOUS.
AND THESE ARE NOT JUST MY BIASED POLITICAL ESTIMATES.
THESE ARE SOME JUDGMENTS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS
WHO HAVE CAREFULLY MEASURED
AND ALSO STUDIED PRESIDENTIAL TRAITS.
AND DIFFERENCE IN OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE.
ONE LIBERAL, ONE CONSERVATIVE.
ONE A CHARISMATIC SPEAKER, ONE-- I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY--
A RATHER AWKWARD PERSONAL VERBAL STYLE,
UH, THOUGH, MAYBE I'M "MIS-UNDERESTIMATING" HIM.
UH, AND THEN, OBAMA HIGHER-- BUT NOT A WHOLE LOT HIGHER--
IN INTEGRATIVE COMPLEXITY.
MY POINT IS THAT THE MOTIVES BY THEMSELVES
ARE NOT THE WHOLE STORY.
YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE THE MOTIVES IN INTERACTION WITH SOCIAL CONTEXT,
WHICH FURNISH CHANNELS FOR THE EXPRESSION OF MOTIVES,
TRAITS, WHICH FURNISH OTHER CHANNELS,
AND COGNITIVE STYLE.
AND SO, A COMPLETE ACCOUNT OF THE PERSONALITY
OF A POLITICAL LEADER
NEEDS TO TAKE ALL FOUR KINDS OF ELEMENTS INTO ACCOUNT.
FINALLY, I WANT TO USE THIS FOURFOLD CONCEPTION OF PERSONALITY
TO MAKE A LITTLE COMPLICATED THE NOTION OF OBAMA
AS A CALM, PLACID PERSON-- HIS LEGENDARY CALM.
WHEN "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
INTERVIEWED A BUNCH OF PSYCHOLOGISTS ABOUT THIS
AND WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT IT,
EVERYBODY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT HIS CALM TEMPERAMENT
AS PARTLY GENETIC,
BECAUSE IT IS PROBABLY TRUE THAT EMOTIONAL STABILITY
HAS A GENETIC BASIS.
WHAT I WANT TO SUGGEST, THOUGH,
IS THAT "LEGENDARY CALM"
CAN COME FROM EVERY ASPECT OF OBAMA'S PERSONALITY,
AND I'M NOW ASSUMING HE IS A RELATIVELY CALM PERSON.
UM, FOR ONE THING, HE'S VERY INTELLIGENT.
AND INTELLIGENCE CAN PROMOTE EMOTIONAL STABILITY,
BECAUSE IT CAN LEAD YOU TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN UNDERSTANDING THREATS,
RATHER THAN JUST FREAKING OUT.
OBAMA IS CAPABLE OF COMPLEX THINKING.
SAME THING.
UNDERSTANDING RATHER THAN FREAKING.
OBAMA HAS HIGH POWER MOTIVATION, WHICH IS THE APPROPRIATE MOTIVE,
I THINK, FOR POLITICS OR FOR POLITICAL SUCCESS.
HE'S NOT TRYING TO FIT HIMSELF,
A SQUARE PEG, INTO A ROUND HOLE,
SO TO SPEAK, WHICH CAN BE A VERY STRESSFUL KIND OF THING.
AND FINALLY, THE SOURCES OF SOCIAL CONTEXT--
OF CALMNESS IN SOCIAL CONTEXT.
OBAMA SPENT HIS ENTIRE LIFE BEFORE COLLEGE IN TWO CULTURES
THAT ARE RELATIVELY--
THAT ARE KNOWN FOR BEING RELATIVELY LAID-BACK,
HAWAII AND INDONESIA.
HE HAD LOVING GRANDPARENTS WHO GAVE HIM,
ACCORDING TO ALL ACCOUNTS,
THE UNCONDITIONAL POSITIVE REGARD
THAT SOMEONE LIKE CARL ROGERS SAYS
IS ESSENTIAL FOR DEVELOPING A CALM, MATURE, ADULT PERSONALITY.
WELL, OBAMA HAD THAT.
HE'S ALSO A BLACK MAN WHO WANTS TO SUCCEED IN THE WHITE WORLD,
AND BOY, IF YOU ARE A BLACK MAN WANTING TO SUCCEED
IN THE WHITE WORLD,
YOU BETTER APPEAR CALM EVEN IF YOU AREN'T CALM.
HE HAD THE EXAMPLE-- THE NEGATIVE EXAMPLE--
OF HIS FATHER, WHO WAS HOSTILE AND AGGRESSIVE
BACK IN KENYA TOWARD JOMO KENYATTA,
AND AS A RESULT,
NEVER REALLY GOT ANYWHERE IN THE KENYAN GOVERNMENT SYSTEM.
AND OBAMA ONCE SAID...
THAT EVERY MAN
IS EITHER TRYING TO MAKE UP FOR HIS FATHER'S MISTAKES,
OR LIVE UP TO HIS EXPECTATIONS.
WELL, I THINK HIS FATHER MADE A MISTAKE,
AND I THINK OBAMA MAY HAVE THAT EXAMPLE VERY MUCH
IN THE FRONT OF HIS CONSCIOUSNESS.
AND THEN, FINALLY, OF COURSE,
IF YOU WANT TO DO WELL AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL,
IT HELPS TO BE CALM,
AND MAYBE IT MAKES YOU RELATIVELY CALM.
SO...
THIS FOURFOLD CONCEPTION IS A WAY OF TAKING A THEME--
CALMNESS--
AND EXPLORING HOW ALL FOUR OF THESE...
ELEMENTS OF PERSONALITY CAN...
CONTRIBUTE TO THAT THEME
OR ASPECT OF PERSONALITY.
NOW, I'M SURE YOU'RE WONDERING,
"WELL, SO WHAT ABOUT WILLARD MITT ROMNEY?"
WE DON'T HAVE AN INAUGURAL ADDRESS TO SCORE.
PERHAPS SOMEDAY, THERE WILL BE THAT.
BUT WHAT I HAVE DONE ON ROMNEY IS TO LOOK AT HIS...
(coughing)
SPEECHES ANNOUNCING HIS CANDIDACY
IN 2008 AND IN 2012.
ACTUALLY, OF COURSE, IT WAS GIVEN BACK IN 2011,
BUT IT'S FOR THE 2012 ELECTION,
COMPARING THEM TO OBAMA'S 2008 ANNOUNCEMENT SPEECH.
UM...
NOT SURE WHAT TO THINK OF THESE OTHER THAN ROMNEY'S A LOT LOWER IN POWER
THIS YEAR THAN HE WAS FOUR YEARS AGO--
ABOUT THE SAME IN ACHIEVEMENT, AND LOWER IN AFFILIATION.
UM, ANOTHER WAY TO TALK ABOUT THAT IS TO CALCULATE
THE VULNERABILITY TO FRUSTRATION INDEX,
AND ROMNEY ACTUALLY IS QUITE HIGH THIS YEAR,
BECAUSE HIS POWER HAS DROPPED
BUT HIS ACHIEVEMENT HAS STAYED ABOUT THE SAME.
ONE MIGHT PREDICT, IF THIS IS A REAL...
ENDURING ASPECT OF ROMNEY'S MOTIVATION,
RATHER THAN JUST A MOMENTARY SNAPSHOT--
AND I'M NOT SURE IT'S ANYTHING OTHER THAN A MOMENTARY SNAPSHOT.
ONE MIGHT SAY, "WELL, IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT ROMNEY
"HAS SHOWN MANY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS
"OF AN ACHIEVEMENT-MOTIVATED PERSON,
"VARYING HIS MESSAGE AND HIS BEHAVIOR
"ON THE BASIS OF RESULTS TO SUIT THE CURRENT CONTEXT."
I HOPE THAT'S A POLITE WAY OF PUTTING IT.
USING FEEDBACK TO CHANGE.
UH, ONE MIGHT SAY, "WELL, IF THAT'S TRUE,
"THEN PERHAPS AS PRESIDENT,
"ROMNEY IS GOING TO BE VERY VULNERABLE
"TO THE KIND OF FRUSTRATION THAT TORMENTED JIMMY CARTER,
"LYNDON JOHNSON, WOODROW WILSON."
UM...
I MAKE NO PREDICTIONS,
BUT I THOUGHT YOU WOULD PROBABLY WANT,
AT LEAST, TO HAVE ME MENTION THE OTHER CANDIDATE.
AND WITH THAT, I WILL CONCLUDE
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION,
AND I WILL WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS,
IF YOU CAN STAY ON TO DISCUSS.
(applause)
>> QUESTIONS?
>> YES? >> I'M WONDERING WHAT--
HOW MUCH YOU GUYS INVOLVE KINESIOLOGY
IN YOUR STUDIES? >> HOW MUCH WHAT?
>> YOU LIKE-- BODIES-- LIKE THE PRESIDENT'S BODY LANGUAGE?
>> YUP.
WELL, THE QUESTION IS, "WHAT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S BODY LANGUAGE?"
MORE BROADLY, CAN I SAY "NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR"?
WHICH IS-- YEAH, THERE ARE POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS
WHO STUDY THAT.
UM, I DON'T PARTICULARLY.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT,
BUT YOU CAN ONLY STUDY A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THINGS.
BUT YES, THAT IS DEFINITELY ONE OF THE THEMES
IN POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY--
THE NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR OF PRESIDENTS,
OF PEOPLE IN POLITICAL SITUATIONS,
SO ON AND SO FORTH.
I FOCUS ON WORDS, BUT WORDS ARE NOT EVERYTHING.
YES?
>> WHAT WAS, UH-- AS FAR AS POWER THING,
WHAT WAS CLINTON RATED?
>> WELL, CLINTON IS KIND OF INTERESTING
BECAUSE HIS INAUGURAL ADDRESS,
HE WAS VERY HIGH IN ACHIEVEMENT.
THAT WAS HIS MAJOR HIGH MOTIVE.
AND THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS, UM,
WERE QUITE CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
FOR EXAMPLE...
HIS ATTEMPT AT HEALTHCARE REFORM.
HE WENT ABOUT IT IN A CLASSIC ACHIEVEMENT-MOTIVATED WAY--
HE PICKED A BUNCH OF EXPERTS, LOCKED THEM IN A ROOM,
AND SAID,
"COME UP WITH A HEALTHCARE REFORM PROPOSAL,"
AND THEY DID.
IT WAS, WHAT-- 1,200 PAGES LONG?
HE DID NOT PAY ANY ATTENTION TO GETTING THIS THROUGH CONGRESS.
HE DID NOT EVEN PUT DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN,
THE DEMOCRATS "GO TO" GUY FOR HEALTHCARE, ON THE PANEL
THAT WAS FORMULATING THIS "BEST OF ALL HEALTHCARE PROPOSALS,"
WITH THE RESULT...
THAT IT WAS DEAD ON ARRIVAL IN CONGRESS.
CLINTON PUT HIS ENERGY INTO THE BEST PROPOSAL,
AND NO ENERGY INTO THE POLITICS
OF GETTING IT THROUGH CONGRESS...
AND IT FLOPPED.
OBAMA, WITH THE OPPOSITE--
THAT IS, POWER HIGH, ACHIEVEMENT LOW--
WHAT DID HE DO?
HE MORE OR LESS WENT TO CONGRESS
AND SAID "THESE ARE GENERAL GUIDELINES.
"YOU GUYS WORK IT OUT."
AND CONGRESS, HAVING CONSTRUCTED IT,
HAD BOUGHT INTO IT.
SO, I THINK THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DIFFERENCE
IN ACHIEVEMENT-MOTIVATED VERSUS POWER-MOTIVATED APPROACH
TO SOLVING A PROBLEM.
NOW, THIS IS QUITE INDEPENDENT OF WHETHER, YOU KNOW,
THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE PROPOSALS,
BUT IT'S HOW YOU FORMULATE AND THEN HOW YOU IMPLEMENT.
NOW, THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT CLINTON IS...
THAT HE, TOO, GOT SHELLACKED IN THE 1994 MIDTERM ELECTION,
AND HE CHANGED DRAMATICALLY.
HE CHANGED A LOT OF HIS STAFF.
AND FOR FUN, I TOOK...
HIS STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE EVERY YEAR,
AND WHAT HAPPENED AFTER '94
IS ACHIEVEMENT TENDED TO GO DOWN,
POWER TENDED TO GO UP.
AND SO, THE REST OF CLINTON'S PRESIDENCY WAS MUCH MORE LIKE
THAT OF A POWER-MOTIVATED PRESIDENT--
HE GOT REELECTED IN A LANDSLIDE.
AND THEN, SOME OF THE LESS ATTRACTIVE CHARACTERISTICS
OF POWER MOTIVATION--
HE BOMBED, UH, WHAT-- BELGRADE IN THE BOSNIAN WAR?
AND THE SUDAN WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO GET OSAMA BIN LADEN?
AND THEN, OF COURSE, THERE'S MONICA LEWINSKY,
SPEAKING OF SEXUAL EXPLOITATION
AS AN ASPECT OF POWER MOTIVATION.
SO, CLINTON ACTUALLY CHANGED,
AND I THINK MADE A VERY INTERESTING STUDY OF THE...
GOING FROM ACHIEVEMENT TO POWER.
YES?
>> WHAT VALUE, IF ANY, FROM A PSYCHOLOGICAL STANDPOINT,
THAT WHEN WE VOTE, THAT WE UNCONSCIOUSLY VOTE
OUR PERSONHOOD-- WHO WE ARE.
"I AM AN ACHIEVER, A POWER-MOTIVATED PERSON--
"A VERY PASSIONATE PERSON." >> MMM-HMM.
>> YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH DO WE UTILIZE THAT WHEN WE VOTE,
VERSUS AN INTELLECTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS PRESIDENT?
BECAUSE I WOULD FIND MYSELF JUMPING ON THE BANDWAGON
OF A PRESIDENT WHO IS POWER-MOTIVATED,
WHO IS PASSIONATE, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT EVEN THINKING ABOUT,
"OKAY, LET ME LOOK AT ALL THE DETAILS
"OF WHAT HE'S BRINGING TO THE TABLE FOR HIS PRESIDENCY."
>> OKAY, THE QUESTION IS WHAT MIGHT BE CALLED "RATIONAL DELIBERATION
"ON THE BASIS OF POLICY STANCES
"VERSUS A SENSE OF EMOTIONAL FEEL OF THE PRESIDENT."
WELL, I THINK, YOU KNOW, BOTH ARE IMPORTANT.
I THINK THAT IF YOU-- LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PAST.
IN 1968, YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN HIGH IN POWER MOTIVATION,
AS WAS GEORGE WALLACE, ONE OF THE CANDIDATES,
BUT AT LEAST FOR ME, WALLACE'S POSITION WAS SO REPUGNANT
ON SO MANY ISSUES THAT HE WAS NOT AN OPTION.
AND SO, EVEN IF-- I'LL JUST SAY I'M A DEMOCRAT--
EVEN IF HUBERT HUMPHREY MAY NOT HAVE FIT MY MOTIVATIONAL STYLE,
I WAS GOING TO VOTE FOR HUMPHREY AND NOT WALLACE.
>> DON'T YOU FEEL THAT TODAY, THOUGH,
THAT THOSE LINES ARE BLURRED MORE NOW?
>> YES, BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO OCCUPY THE CENTER
OF EXPLICIT POLICY POSITIONS.
AND SO, THE COGNITIONS THAT YOU GET
ARE NOT OF THAT VERY MUCH USE.
YEAH, I WOULD-- I MEAN, HERE'S HOW I WOULD LIKE TO THINK
THAT IT WORKS,
AND MAYBE SOMEDAY I'LL BE ABLE TO THINK OF AN EXPERIMENT
OR A STUDY THAT WILL PROVE THIS,
OR MAYBE SOME OF YOU WILL--
IMAGINE THAT THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOTIVATIONAL SPACE,
AND NOW PUT YOURSELF IN IT,
ASSUMING THAT WE HAVE A MEASURE OF YOUR MOTIVES,
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ARE CLOSER TO ONE OF THE CANDIDATES,
YOU WILL PROBABLY HAVE THAT SENSE OF EMOTIONAL
OR MOTIVATIONAL RESONANCE.
THEY'RE TALKING YOUR LANGUAGE,
BUT AT THE KIND OF THEMATIC LEVEL,
NOT THE EXPLICIT DENOTATIVE LEVEL.
SO, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S HOW THIS WORKS.
THAT UNCONSCIOUS OR IMPLICIT PULL THAT YOU FEEL
IS A FUNCTION OF HOW CLOSE YOUR POINT
IN THIS THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPACE IS TO THE CANDIDATE'S.
AND THEN, THERE ARE OTHER LEVELS, AS WELL.
THAT'S ASSUMING A BASIC, "THEY'RE OKAY IN TERMS
"OF EXPLICIT POLICY POSITIONS,"
SO THAT-- UH, YOU WOULDN'T OF, IN 1968, SUPPORTED WALLACE,
EVEN IF HE WAS CLOSEST TO YOUR MOTIVE PROFILE.
VOTING IS, IN THAT SENSE, MULTIDIMENSIONAL.
AND THEN, THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES, TOO.
WE PROBABLY TEND TO VOTE THE WAY OUR FRIENDS VOTE,
OR AT LEAST WE ARE AFFECTED BY OUR FRIENDS.
IF ALL OF MY FRIENDS--
WELL, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD CHANGE MY PRESIDENTIAL VOTE,
BUT MAYBE MY VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE OR SENATOR
OR CITY COUNCIL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
A COMPLICATED PROCESS,
BUT I DO THINK MOTIVATIONAL CONGRUENCE
IS ONE ASPECT.
YES?
>> I NOTICED THERE WAS A TREND FROM BUSH, CLINTON, BUSH TWO,
WITH THE POWER MOTIVES GOING UP AND UP.
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT PART OF THAT-- AT LEAST PART OF THAT--
IS A REFLECTION OF AMERICANS TENDING TO BE TOLD
WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR--
LIKE, THEY'RE BOUNCING STUFF OFF OF FOCUS GROUPS,
AND THEIR WRITING INAUGURAL SPEECHES TO BE MORE PALATABLE
TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC?
UM, I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A CORRELATION?
>> WELL, OKAY, THE QUESTION IS "GIVEN THE TREND
"OF MOTIVES SCORES IN THOSE FOUR PRESIDENTS,
"WITH POWER CONSTANTLY GOING UP"--
YOU'RE IMAGINING ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS.
ONE INTERPRETATION WOULD BE THAT THESE--
WE'RE JUST GETTING MORE AND MORE POWER-MOTIVATED PRESIDENTS.
ANOTHER INTERPRETATION IS THAT AMERICAN SOCIETY
SEEMS TO BE CALLING FOR MORE AND MORE POWER-MOTIVATED PRESIDENTS.
AND SO, HEY, THESE CANDIDATES-- THEY COULD BE ANYTHING,
BUT THEY'RE RESPONDING TO A MARKET AS THEY PERCEIVE IT,
AND SO THEY'RE PUTTING MORE AND MORE OF THAT IMAGERY
INTO THEIR SPEECHES.
SO, IS THE PRESIDENT AN INDEPENDENT ACTOR,
OR IS THE PRESIDENT A REFLECTION OF THE SOCIETY
THAT ELECTS THAT PRESIDENT?
OR AT LEAST WHAT HE THINKS THAT SOCIETY IS?
AND I'LL ANSWER WITH ONE WORD-- "BOTH."
>> OKAY. >> OR "I DON'T KNOW."
OR "IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE OF EACH."
>> THAT'S WHAT I SUSPECTED,
BUT I DON'T WANT TO CREATE A FALSE DICHOTOMY.
>> SURE, SURE. >> WE HAVE TIME FOR ONE MORE--
>> WE MAY BE DEMANDING THIS OF OUR PRESIDENT.
>> WE HAVE TIME FOR ONE MORE QUESTION.
THERE WAS A HAND IN THE BACK THERE, AND THEN--
>> YES, MA'AM?
>> I WANT TO KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THE STATISTICS
ON WHOSE OPINION--
AND DOES THE POLITICAL AGENDA OF THESE STATISTICS
HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE STUDY OR THE STATISTICS?
>> OKAY, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE I GOT MY STATISTICS ON WHAT?
>> WHERE YOU GOT YOUR STATISTICS AND ON WHOSE OPINIONS, OKAY?
>> SURE.
>> AND DOES THE POLITICAL AFFILIATION OF THE STATISTICS,
OR THOSE THAT MADE THE STATISTICS,
HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BASIS FOR THE STUDY?
>> SURE.
WELL, UH...
I THINK YOU MEAN THE STATISTICS OF THOSE VARIOUS PRESIDENTIAL OUTCOMES,
LIKE "RATED GREATNESS" AND "GREAT DECISIONS" AND SO FORTH,
AND SCANDALS AND SO FORTH-- YEAH.
>> BECAUSE THEY SEEM VERY POLITICAL TO--
AS AN OLDER PERSON, OVER THOSE THAT ARE IN THE CLASSROOMS.
SO, I WANT YOUR ANSWER ON THAT.
>> SURE, OKAY.
UH, DIFFERENT SOURCES FOR DIFFERENT STATISTICS.
I WON'T GO BACK AND PUT THAT TABLE ON THE BOARD,
BUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT AFTERWARD.
"RATED GREATNESS" COMES FROM THE STUDIES OF HISTORIANS.
HISTORIANS OF AMERICAN HISTORY OR THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
ARE GETTING POLLED EVERY NOW AND THEN--
AS I SAID, THERE'S KIND OF A COTTAGE INDUSTRY OF THAT--
AND I SIMPLY TOOK THE NUMBERS.
ARE THESE HISTORIANS THEMSELVES BIASED,
OR DO THEY HAVE A PARTICULAR ORIENTATION?
ALMOST CERTAINLY.
FOR ONE THING, WE KNOW THEY TEND TO LIKE THE WAR PRESIDENTS.
PROBABLY THEY ARE MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN REPUBLICAN.
>> I FIGURED THAT.
>> I TOOK THE NUMBERS THAT THE STUDIES PRODUCED.
UH, ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS--
THAT'S A PRETTY EASY THING TO MEASURE.
ACTUALLY, IT GETS COMPLICATED.
YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS WHO WERE ASSASSINATED,
YOU CAN TALK ABOUT ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS LIKE GERALD FORD,
BUT HE NEVER GAVE AN INAUGURAL SO WE DON'T KNOW,
BUT SOMEBODY SHOT A GUN IN HIS PRESENCE.
WHAT ABOUT RICHARD NIXON?
UH, THERE WAS A WEIRD GUY NAMED SAMUEL BYCK
WHO, WITH A PISTOL,
TRIED TO HIJACK A DC-9 AIRLINER IN THE BALTIMORE AIRPORT,
AND ACTUALLY SHOT THE PILOT
BEFORE HE WAS HIMSELF WAS SHOT...
STUFF THAT HE LEFT IN HIS CAR SUGGESTED HE WAS GOING TO TRY
AND GET THAT AIRLINER TO CRASH INTO THE WHITE HOUSE
TO KILL NIXON.
WOULD YOU COUNT THAT AS AN ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT?
IT DIDN'T GET VERY FAR.
AND THEN, IF YOU ACCOUNT ANY OLD THREAT,
THE SECRET SERVICE WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE HUNDREDS, THOUSANDS.
SO, IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY TO FIND OPERATIONALLY WHAT YOU MEAN.
SEX SCANDALS-- THAT WAS EASY.
UM, AROUND THE TIME OF CLINTON-LEWINSKY,
"THE NEW YORK TIMES" RAN AN ARTICLE DREDGING UP
ALL THE RUMORED SEX SCANDALS OF ALL THE PRESIDENTS
IN AMERICAN HISTORY,
AND I JUST TOOK WHERE THEY MENTIONED
IN THAT "NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE OR NOT.
>> SO, THE THREE BASES THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT--
THE POWER, THE AFFILIATION-- >> ACHIEVEMENT.
>> ACHIEVEMENT, YEAH.
SO, YOU YOURSELF GOT THOSE STATISTICS--
OR YOU GOT THE STATISTICS FROM SOMEPLACE,
AND THEY ARE VERY POLITICALLY AGENDA-ED.
>> OKAY, YEAH.
THE, UM...
THE MOTIVES SCORES THEMSELVES
ARE BASED ON THE APPLICATION
OF CONTENT ANALYSIS CATEGORIES--
SCORING DEFINITIONS, IF YOU WILL.
THESE KINDS OF IMAGES COUNT FOR ACHIEVEMENT
OR AFFILIATION OR POWER.
AND THOSE CATEGORIES, THOSE DEFINITIONS,
COME FROM DECADES OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
IN THE LABORATORY WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE,
THIS HALF OF THE ROOM, WE SOMEHOW AROUSE
YOUR ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION OR YOUR POWER MOTIVATION...
THIS HALF OF THE ROOM, WE HAVE YOU DOING SOME NEUTRAL THING...
AND THEN WE GIVE YOU ALL THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TESTS,
WHERE YOU WRITE STORIES TO A SERIES OF PICTURES,
AND THEN WE LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCES,
TO CONSTRUCT A CATEGORY WHICH WE WILL CALL "ACHIEVEMENT"
OR "AFFILIATION" OR "POWER," DEPENDING ON WHAT WE AROUSED,
AND THEN WE DO SEVERAL DIFFERENT KINDS OF AROUSAL EXPERIMENTS
TO MAKE SURE WE'RE REALLY MEASURING WHATEVER.
THOSE CATEGORIES CAN BE APPLIED QUITE OBJECTIVELY,
WITH ABOUT 90 PERCENT AGREEMENT,
DIFFERENT SCORERS WORKING INDEPENDENTLY.
THEY AREN'T QUITE THE SORT OF THING
YOU CAN GET A COMPUTER TO DO.
WHAT I DID WITH THE INAUGURAL ADDRESSES
IS TO HAVE SCORERS SCORE THEM...
UH, USING THESE CATEGORIES.
DIFFERENT SCORERS AGREED 90 PERCENT.
I TOOK THOSE SCORINGS.
SO, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE DEFINITIONS THAT WERE APPLIED
WERE PRETTY OBJECTIVE,
BECAUSE THEY WERE BASED ON THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.
NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN YOU'RE SCORING A PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL ADDRESS,
WHEN YOU COME ACROSS THE SENTENCE,
"ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU, ETCETERA, ETCETERA."
YOU KNOW WHERE THAT COMES FROM.
YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT JUST SCORING WHATEVER.
YOU KNOW IT'S NOT CALVIN COOLIDGE.
SO, THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SCORING
IS GONNA BE AFFECTED BY THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT YOU'RE SCORING,
AND SO THE SCORES WERE NOT COMPLETELY BLIND
IN THE WAY THAT WE LIKE TO DO IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH,
WHERE THE SCORER DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IS BEING MEASURED.
SO, I WOULD SAY THAT BOTH ON THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE SIDE,
IF YOU WILL-- THE MOTIVES SCORES--
AND ON THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE SIDE--
THE PRESIDENTIAL OUTCOMES--
THERE IS PROBABLY SOME NOISE
AND POSSIBLY SOME BIAS, BUT...
THERE IS A CORE OF OBJECTIVITY
TO BOTH KINDS OF VARIABLES.
AND ONE CAN REPLICATE, ONE CAN LOOK FOR OTHER PEOPLE...
(coughing) SCORING THE SAME DATA,
OTHER MEASURES OF PRESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE.
UM, I'D LOVE TO INCORPORATE ANYTHING
THAT ANYBODY HAS EVER MEASURED
WITH ANY KIND OF OBJECTIVITY ABOUT THE PRESIDENCY.
>> WELL, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
>> PLEASE, THANK DR. WINTER.
(applause)