New research has discovered a new personality trait called "need for chaos." They just want to watch the world burn and they're happy to help democracy end in flames. We must understand them.
Being that I live in “trump land” aka Staten Island “the need for chaos” person is very much real. It is tough having to deal which these types on a daily basis. 😞
“ they indiscriminately share hostile political rumors as a way to unleash chaos and mobilize individuals against the established order that fails to accord them the respect that they feel they personally deserve.”
Everything in your piece describes not only trolls but Trump…to a T. I truly believe he’d be happy and content to rule standing on a pile of rubble and ashes, no responsibility to make decisions, simply adored and venerated people he sees as tiny in comparison to him.
This fills in a piece of the puzzle. I've met these men. (men) They say things like, "I just want to shake things up." They have no care about harming others, or perhaps they don't acknowledge the connection. I think that the inherently chaotic Trump has a special appeal for them. They do find each other on the web, just as pedophiles, and other abhorrent people do. This concentrates the behavior through validation, perhaps giving them the courage to act. Thanks so much; this could be the elusive 'special sauce.' And I love the stencil.
Your post today is fascinating--thank you. I'm writing a novel in which I have a character who fits the Need for Chaos individual perfectly. In the case you describe I understand why you say such individuals, on the Web, are white males who have lost their status. But I would like to add that such "prankster" chaos agents are also archetypes whom I would place in the category of the Trickster, who is common to many if not all folklore traditions. He'll show up anywhere and is often, if not always, in need of discipline. That doesn't mean he's not scary--he is. I would argue that the Trickster is common to all of humanity. The ones you describe are narrow in their focus when they lash out, but Tricksters also represent a curious and creative capacity in humans.
I started by not agreeing with you, but you might be right. Raven, Coyote, Krishna, others. I don't like to acknowledge the malevolent aspect of the Trickster, but thinking on it, callous disregard is part of that archetype/divinity. My issue is that there's always something endearing about them, but not here. Can you comment on that lack? Good call.
It's complicated. Lew Hyde named his book Trickster Makes This World, Mischief, Myth, and Art. The white male trolls are poor examples because they are so powerless yet show many characteristics of the tricker. On the other hand, might Elon Musk be an example of a powerful trickster?
The Trickster has fascinated me for many years. I made several puppet shows about Trickster Hare, which I performed for schools and libraries and even the Smithsonian, using Radin's book but some of the stories I produced later got me in trouble. Which is, of course, exactly what Trickers do--get in trouble. Right now, I'm writing a novel rewriting Nordic/Germanic myths. The human characters interact with the gods and goddesses. Loki, who I have named Spider, has sort of written himself into the book in surprising ways, far too complicated for me to describe here, but he is malevolent and mischievous, and also an access point into the shamanic, invisible dreamworlds and other worlds. He serves as the intermediary for both creation and destruction, death and life's renewal, at least in my book he does. I've also studied and written about the Imagination and believe that the Trickster Archetype represents the Imagination.
PS. Maybe the animal tricksters are endearing because the storytellers made them so. The stories are often funny. But there isn't anything particularly funny or endearing about my human-like character Spider. Even his lover calls him an insect. However, they also help people and can be protective. The Chinese Monkey King, I think would fit into that category.
thank you, Brian. having a designation for these people is useful. I remember seeing an exchange in 2016 that chilled me to the bone, a couple of guys who agreed they just wanted to watch everything burn for fun...seems to me there's a distinction between the ones who want it for personal gain and those who just like to watch fires. it's the nihilism that scares me. have they always been with us, but just not connected by social media so they weren't particularly noticeable? I do fear what these folks will do to get their cheap thrills bc consequences don't interest them at all, only the thrill of watching the explosions (see end of Fight Club).
Excellent insights, very important work Brian! In the age of insecurity, of anxiety when so many of us are filled with fear-lack understanding of what's going on, feel distrust, feel cheated, feel misunderstood that makes for a lot of unhappy people. Add to that a personality disorder that has people addicted to chaos with little perceived interest or investment in peace and order but anger with changing order and a craving for chaos and you have very sick and dangerous people. Recognizing these people is important, be polite and excuse yourself from them...hope they help.
One more comment; I sort of resent the idea that it's up to 'us' to fix them, to provide comfort to them for the insult of having their status impugned and their bruised egos reconstructed. What I really want to do is to say, "Grow up."
Quite an interesting read. What can we do about it? How might we “deal” with it?
“The challenge for modern politics, then, lies with figuring out a way to deal with the inevitable perceived loss of social status that accompanies a society that’s becoming more equal, while mitigating the damage that these aggrieved chaos agents can inflict on everyone else. “
Familiar with the MMPI(Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory)? The statements provided seem very similar. The fallacy of that test is the assumption of cooperation by the tested persons. A ‘lie’ scale is intended to correct for that shortcoming but is pretty easily defeated by those with ulterior intent. Thus, while the notion of a new personality type (which these test items are obviously intended to sample) could grossly underestimate occurrence. Such hypothetical types would hardly be likely to reveal themselves voluntarily. More likely they would obfuscate, uncooperative as the type would be. Thus, the personality you describe would be under-reported and under-detected. Much more research is indicated. Good luck with that!
Thanks again. I enjoy reading your blogs and the new information you provide. I haven’t read the personality research you cite, but you wrote: “The researchers explain that his is nothing new....” I wonder if they compare these modern “Need for Chaos” people to historical groups with a “destructive mindset” such as the Vandals, Goths, Huns and individuals such as Genghis Khan.
If “Need for Chaos” is a personality trait, then it must have both genetic and environmental components. It’s not simple. It’s just one trait, and, as you point out, it’s a predisposition that can be activated in certain perceived environmental conditions such as “loss of status” and “marginalization” because of “expansion of racial and gender equality.” In this sense it is similar to the authoritarian personality trait.
Need for Chaos does seem to be a good contribution to the vast literature on political personality and personality theories of conservatism which include: right wing authoritarianism, dogmatism, social dominance, ideological polarity theory, intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, system justification..., all of which can blend or be found in some degree in the same individual.
However, Need for Chaos personality is just one dimension of a person’s personality; it’s an “Index”, a spectrum. This is evident in these comments: “It’s not about political agendas; it’s about destruction” and “...people who score high on the Need for Chaos index express a greater willingness to participate in violent acts on behalf of a political cause.” On one extreme of the Need for Chaos trait are those for whom “it’s about destruction” and on the other extreme perhaps it’s just schadenfreude and in between it’s about people who “participate in violent acts on behalf of a political cause.” Someone for whom the trait is dominant would not need a “political cause” to activate the trait.
As you conclude, “The challenge for modern politics, then, lies with figuring out a way to deal with the inevitable loss of social status that accompanies a society that’s becoming more equal....” Perhaps we might be able to make people aware of their personality traits, but I don’t think we can change them. Need for Chaos individuals don’t want certain people to be equal with themselves. That’s a fundamental problem.
I dispute your comment about 'historical groups with a “destructive mindset” such as the Vandals, Goths, Huns and individuals such as Genghis Khan'. War is a destructive mindset, common to many people, including the Romans. We see the groups you mentioned as destructive in the West, but Goths were people fleeing from invasions of their homelands and were looking for new lands in which to settle, the Vandals were fleeing from raids by the Huns. The Huns were nomadic and Genghis Khan, was a leader of a nomadic tribe, and traditionally nomads don't like cities or walls that prevent the grazing of their herds. However, I do find it troubling that Khan took so many women that a large number of men are said to carry his DNA.
...can more easily find like-minded others and can more easily share their views.”
And have their own 'views' validated; homogenized; broadened and deepened. The Comfort in Numbers, plus the Wonderful Anonymity?
Kierkegaard said ( predicted?) we'd do things as members of a crowd that we would never think to do as individuals. Witness hockey/soccer riots, looting, etc...once someone throws a rock, smashes a window...we are watching the rocks being thrown now. Coming from the right.
Very interesting. I wonder if the 7 listed statement split, by any chance, into two factors (1-5 and 6&7) as the latter two seem distinct, more about personal preference and boredom/stimulation rather than social destruction.
I have absolutely no desire to damage social institutions but boy I LOVE smashing and discarding physical stuff whose breaking is not going to cause real harm. It's not impossible that it's the same impulse sublimated without my ever noticing.
Dear Brain,
Thank you for this, as if I wasn’t having enough trouble sleeping already.
We lost our majestic border collie Zach in December. I endorse the stencil.
Being that I live in “trump land” aka Staten Island “the need for chaos” person is very much real. It is tough having to deal which these types on a daily basis. 😞
“ they indiscriminately share hostile political rumors as a way to unleash chaos and mobilize individuals against the established order that fails to accord them the respect that they feel they personally deserve.”
Everything in your piece describes not only trolls but Trump…to a T. I truly believe he’d be happy and content to rule standing on a pile of rubble and ashes, no responsibility to make decisions, simply adored and venerated people he sees as tiny in comparison to him.
This fills in a piece of the puzzle. I've met these men. (men) They say things like, "I just want to shake things up." They have no care about harming others, or perhaps they don't acknowledge the connection. I think that the inherently chaotic Trump has a special appeal for them. They do find each other on the web, just as pedophiles, and other abhorrent people do. This concentrates the behavior through validation, perhaps giving them the courage to act. Thanks so much; this could be the elusive 'special sauce.' And I love the stencil.
Your post today is fascinating--thank you. I'm writing a novel in which I have a character who fits the Need for Chaos individual perfectly. In the case you describe I understand why you say such individuals, on the Web, are white males who have lost their status. But I would like to add that such "prankster" chaos agents are also archetypes whom I would place in the category of the Trickster, who is common to many if not all folklore traditions. He'll show up anywhere and is often, if not always, in need of discipline. That doesn't mean he's not scary--he is. I would argue that the Trickster is common to all of humanity. The ones you describe are narrow in their focus when they lash out, but Tricksters also represent a curious and creative capacity in humans.
I started by not agreeing with you, but you might be right. Raven, Coyote, Krishna, others. I don't like to acknowledge the malevolent aspect of the Trickster, but thinking on it, callous disregard is part of that archetype/divinity. My issue is that there's always something endearing about them, but not here. Can you comment on that lack? Good call.
It's complicated. Lew Hyde named his book Trickster Makes This World, Mischief, Myth, and Art. The white male trolls are poor examples because they are so powerless yet show many characteristics of the tricker. On the other hand, might Elon Musk be an example of a powerful trickster?
The Trickster has fascinated me for many years. I made several puppet shows about Trickster Hare, which I performed for schools and libraries and even the Smithsonian, using Radin's book but some of the stories I produced later got me in trouble. Which is, of course, exactly what Trickers do--get in trouble. Right now, I'm writing a novel rewriting Nordic/Germanic myths. The human characters interact with the gods and goddesses. Loki, who I have named Spider, has sort of written himself into the book in surprising ways, far too complicated for me to describe here, but he is malevolent and mischievous, and also an access point into the shamanic, invisible dreamworlds and other worlds. He serves as the intermediary for both creation and destruction, death and life's renewal, at least in my book he does. I've also studied and written about the Imagination and believe that the Trickster Archetype represents the Imagination.
PS. Maybe the animal tricksters are endearing because the storytellers made them so. The stories are often funny. But there isn't anything particularly funny or endearing about my human-like character Spider. Even his lover calls him an insect. However, they also help people and can be protective. The Chinese Monkey King, I think would fit into that category.
thank you, Brian. having a designation for these people is useful. I remember seeing an exchange in 2016 that chilled me to the bone, a couple of guys who agreed they just wanted to watch everything burn for fun...seems to me there's a distinction between the ones who want it for personal gain and those who just like to watch fires. it's the nihilism that scares me. have they always been with us, but just not connected by social media so they weren't particularly noticeable? I do fear what these folks will do to get their cheap thrills bc consequences don't interest them at all, only the thrill of watching the explosions (see end of Fight Club).
Excellent insights, very important work Brian! In the age of insecurity, of anxiety when so many of us are filled with fear-lack understanding of what's going on, feel distrust, feel cheated, feel misunderstood that makes for a lot of unhappy people. Add to that a personality disorder that has people addicted to chaos with little perceived interest or investment in peace and order but anger with changing order and a craving for chaos and you have very sick and dangerous people. Recognizing these people is important, be polite and excuse yourself from them...hope they help.
hope they GET help
"...people addicted to chaos with little perceived interest or investment in peace and order..."
peace and order sound insufficient to some. Dull stuff. No action; no conquest= No heroic times
One more comment; I sort of resent the idea that it's up to 'us' to fix them, to provide comfort to them for the insult of having their status impugned and their bruised egos reconstructed. What I really want to do is to say, "Grow up."
A fascinating piece. Is there any hope of redemption for such types? Walking away feels too easy and will do nothing to change them. Any suggestions?
Quite an interesting read. What can we do about it? How might we “deal” with it?
“The challenge for modern politics, then, lies with figuring out a way to deal with the inevitable perceived loss of social status that accompanies a society that’s becoming more equal, while mitigating the damage that these aggrieved chaos agents can inflict on everyone else. “
Familiar with the MMPI(Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory)? The statements provided seem very similar. The fallacy of that test is the assumption of cooperation by the tested persons. A ‘lie’ scale is intended to correct for that shortcoming but is pretty easily defeated by those with ulterior intent. Thus, while the notion of a new personality type (which these test items are obviously intended to sample) could grossly underestimate occurrence. Such hypothetical types would hardly be likely to reveal themselves voluntarily. More likely they would obfuscate, uncooperative as the type would be. Thus, the personality you describe would be under-reported and under-detected. Much more research is indicated. Good luck with that!
I don’t even have a dog and I absolutely love that stencil!!
Fantastic! Where would we be without our dogs?
Dear Brian (alias Brain),
Thanks again. I enjoy reading your blogs and the new information you provide. I haven’t read the personality research you cite, but you wrote: “The researchers explain that his is nothing new....” I wonder if they compare these modern “Need for Chaos” people to historical groups with a “destructive mindset” such as the Vandals, Goths, Huns and individuals such as Genghis Khan.
If “Need for Chaos” is a personality trait, then it must have both genetic and environmental components. It’s not simple. It’s just one trait, and, as you point out, it’s a predisposition that can be activated in certain perceived environmental conditions such as “loss of status” and “marginalization” because of “expansion of racial and gender equality.” In this sense it is similar to the authoritarian personality trait.
Need for Chaos does seem to be a good contribution to the vast literature on political personality and personality theories of conservatism which include: right wing authoritarianism, dogmatism, social dominance, ideological polarity theory, intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, system justification..., all of which can blend or be found in some degree in the same individual.
However, Need for Chaos personality is just one dimension of a person’s personality; it’s an “Index”, a spectrum. This is evident in these comments: “It’s not about political agendas; it’s about destruction” and “...people who score high on the Need for Chaos index express a greater willingness to participate in violent acts on behalf of a political cause.” On one extreme of the Need for Chaos trait are those for whom “it’s about destruction” and on the other extreme perhaps it’s just schadenfreude and in between it’s about people who “participate in violent acts on behalf of a political cause.” Someone for whom the trait is dominant would not need a “political cause” to activate the trait.
As you conclude, “The challenge for modern politics, then, lies with figuring out a way to deal with the inevitable loss of social status that accompanies a society that’s becoming more equal....” Perhaps we might be able to make people aware of their personality traits, but I don’t think we can change them. Need for Chaos individuals don’t want certain people to be equal with themselves. That’s a fundamental problem.
I dispute your comment about 'historical groups with a “destructive mindset” such as the Vandals, Goths, Huns and individuals such as Genghis Khan'. War is a destructive mindset, common to many people, including the Romans. We see the groups you mentioned as destructive in the West, but Goths were people fleeing from invasions of their homelands and were looking for new lands in which to settle, the Vandals were fleeing from raids by the Huns. The Huns were nomadic and Genghis Khan, was a leader of a nomadic tribe, and traditionally nomads don't like cities or walls that prevent the grazing of their herds. However, I do find it troubling that Khan took so many women that a large number of men are said to carry his DNA.
...can more easily find like-minded others and can more easily share their views.”
And have their own 'views' validated; homogenized; broadened and deepened. The Comfort in Numbers, plus the Wonderful Anonymity?
Kierkegaard said ( predicted?) we'd do things as members of a crowd that we would never think to do as individuals. Witness hockey/soccer riots, looting, etc...once someone throws a rock, smashes a window...we are watching the rocks being thrown now. Coming from the right.
Very interesting. I wonder if the 7 listed statement split, by any chance, into two factors (1-5 and 6&7) as the latter two seem distinct, more about personal preference and boredom/stimulation rather than social destruction.
I have absolutely no desire to damage social institutions but boy I LOVE smashing and discarding physical stuff whose breaking is not going to cause real harm. It's not impossible that it's the same impulse sublimated without my ever noticing.