I don't subscribe to The New York Times so I can't open the articles in your links. Judging by the words and cartoon in this newsletter, it seems as though you're saying that Biden surrounds himself with yes men, which leads to bad decisions. I agree with that view, but since you don't mention Trump, you seem to let him off the hook for that same failing. Trump seems to stifle dissent more than most politicians. You say that you're registered as an independent voter, but mentioning only Biden's failing and not Trump's even greater failing makes you seem biased to me, especially considering the timing of this newsletter.
Joanne, I understand your concern about the perceived bias.
It's important to hold all leaders accountable, regardless of their political affiliation. While the newsletter focuses on Biden’s issues with surrounding himself with yes men, Trump’s similar failings in stifling dissent should also be acknowledged. Both leaders have made decisions influenced by echo chambers, which can lead to very significant problems.
As any independent voter, it's crucial to critically evaluate all sides and ensure balanced scrutiny. Thanks for highlighting this point, Joanne!
People pay too much attention to politicians and don't take the time to research how government works. On election day they vote and wear their little "I Voted" sticker and that's as far as their active participation goes. Then they blame the politicians when things turn into a mess. Most people spend too much time watching football or Tik Tok but they don't ask questions and learn about what the politicians they elect are doing.
Jan, you do make a compelling point about civic engagement.
Many people do seem to limit their political involvement to voting on election day and then disengage. Understanding how government works and staying informed about what elected officials are doing is of paramount importance. It's true that distractions like entertainment can pull focus away from these responsibilities.
I find that encouraging more active participation and education about politics could lead to better-informed decisions and a more accountable government. Your thoughts?
I applaud you for understanding what I'm saying. Here's the way I look at it, the Declaration of Independence begins with "We the people..." and not We the government or We the elected officials. So it's every single person's responsibility and duty as an American citizen to be engaged in how their governments (local, state, and federal) are operating and providing services to the public. I like watching a football or basketball game like many people and there's nothing wrong with that. However, if you can rattle off a bunch of stats about your favorite team or your favorite player but you can name only one or two elected people that represent you, that's where there's a huge disconnect. Does that make sense?
Jan I think you and I may be on the same page. Essentially our current form of government and voting is incorrect and we are not following the process of voting as it should be.
I appreciate the thoughts. As a reader of political psychology such as articles by Jonathan Haidt, I was in partial agreement with your points. We don't know actually if there is a roomful of yes-men in the Biden circle. History has shown that there has been insider disagreements before with other leaders. I would guess there are other reasons Biden remains in, such as family influence, a lack of his own self-awareness on his present condition, etc. But to omit Trump, who has spent his entire career surrounding himself with a cadre of sycophants, and choosing to keep or remove them based on their loyalty, is a prime case. And this does not involve supposition- there is a ream of documentation about his way of operating - esp those who used to be a part of his inner circle, but would be disposed for insufficient adherence to the group think. And if you come back to kiss the ring, well you can re-enter the fold.
As has been mentioned by other readers, your views as “an organizational psychologist” seem awfully one sided. Biden has surrounded himself by ‘yes’ people? And has stepped into a space where all he wants is to win? C’mon be fair. How about an analysis of the other candidates apparent inability to tell the truth? I have to admit, I’m a little disappointed.
I'm *very* disappointed in Adam Grant's post. I had admired him and had recommended his work to others. Criticizing Biden while seemingly giving Trump a free pass for greater failings seems grossly unfair to me. I hope Grant corrects this error with a follow-up post. If he doesn't, I'm afraid my opinion of him will be forever tarnished.
As a trained journalist, I can’t help but notice that org psychology also applies to mainstream media. Never has an independent free press been more important, yet the same behavior is playing out there too.
Adam, the premise that our voting decisions are based far more on emotion & gut instinct rather than reason, has been totally validated, IMO, by the fact that Donald Trump is the presumptive favorite to win the presidency. The man is a shameless pathological liar and grifter, yet he's favored to win the election. Go figure!!!
I didn't read your two articles about Biden after the debate. I'll assume they are valid.
What's interesting is that you assumed your expertise is well applied here and just from the titles of your pieces, and the very fact that you chose to write them, suggests that it isn't. You reacted, like so many others, to Biden's poor performance. But I think you are missing the bigger picture. Yes, his performance was abysmal. And yes, he may be caught in a group think trap. But his debate performance has little to do with that, just as Trump's performance does not suggest that he doesn't suffer the same problem.
Both politicians are older than should be electable. Both suffer concerning mental lapses - regularly. But the debate offers little insight into those issues other than it was Biden's moment of failure. And people on both sides, and even supposed independents, are overreacting to one data point. Trump's opportunity for failure may yet come. Therefore I don't think Biden's debate performance, or Trump's for that matter, should have been the basis for assessing entrapment in group think.
Thanks Adam. I've been looking for an intelligent perspective on the recent political controversies that have been developing since the election debate.
Just like your book "Granted," you helped shed some light on how to process and think through these issues.
I know Joe is determined to win, and he can by running instead for Vice President.
This takes the age issue off the table and he still gets to beat Trump and finish the great work he has accomplished.
Plus, the spotlight is now cast on Trump’s age!
More importantly, it would unite the Party to push for victory.
Unfortunately Joe’s horrible debate performance confirmed what voters already had feared about his facilities. No matter how well he subsequently performs campaigning, he cannot guarantee that he may not have future lapses. And this is what’s on most people’s hesitancy.
But running as VP would be a game-changer, injecting new blood into the campaign. They could run as a co-presidency, just as he successfully did with Obama.
This 2+2=5 would guarantee winning the White House, both chambers of House and saving the Supreme Court.
I know Joe loves the USA democracy and making this decision would hallmark his illustrious public service career and make real history.
"A lot of money is being invested in infrastructure, like the building of roads and bridges, and if you travel around this country, you'll see those things being built that is now happening, but, but almost no money is going into investments of civic infrastructure, of soft infrastructure, of, of the institutions that make people into good citizens. I mean, you're, you're not spending money on things that would make families stronger. You're not spending money on things that would make public schools stronger. You're not making money on things that would make churches function more effectively, or community groups, all the things that have been falling apart over decades in the United States. And, I, I think that those soft things are not as valued. They are also harder to measure, but that is, actually, where the depth of the challenges in the US exist."
I'm reminded of reading about a generational cycle in the US, which repeats in sets of four. One of the discriminators among the four generation types is the value the generation places in institutions (at a very high, massively generalized level). Baby Boomers were seen as breaking down institutions (think 1960s) while their parents were institution-builders. I think this puts Millennials / Gen-Z in the institution building position, which I guess is good, because that is exactly the work they have ahead of them, in the world that Boomers and Gen-X are handing off. As a Gen-Xer, I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Adam, your insights as an organizational psychologist offer a refreshing perspective on political leadership and decision-making. I completely agree that embracing dissent and avoiding the trap of escalation of commitment are crucial for effective leadership. Your approach of evaluating leaders based on character and competence rather than ideology is a compelling vision for a more thoughtful and less polarized political environment.
The discussions with Ian Bremmer and Anne Curzan also sound fascinating. It’s always valuable to place current events within a broader context and explore the nuances of language and communication. Thanks for sharing these thought-provoking articles and conversations!
I don't subscribe to The New York Times so I can't open the articles in your links. Judging by the words and cartoon in this newsletter, it seems as though you're saying that Biden surrounds himself with yes men, which leads to bad decisions. I agree with that view, but since you don't mention Trump, you seem to let him off the hook for that same failing. Trump seems to stifle dissent more than most politicians. You say that you're registered as an independent voter, but mentioning only Biden's failing and not Trump's even greater failing makes you seem biased to me, especially considering the timing of this newsletter.
Joanne, I understand your concern about the perceived bias.
It's important to hold all leaders accountable, regardless of their political affiliation. While the newsletter focuses on Biden’s issues with surrounding himself with yes men, Trump’s similar failings in stifling dissent should also be acknowledged. Both leaders have made decisions influenced by echo chambers, which can lead to very significant problems.
As any independent voter, it's crucial to critically evaluate all sides and ensure balanced scrutiny. Thanks for highlighting this point, Joanne!
I felt the exact same way.
People pay too much attention to politicians and don't take the time to research how government works. On election day they vote and wear their little "I Voted" sticker and that's as far as their active participation goes. Then they blame the politicians when things turn into a mess. Most people spend too much time watching football or Tik Tok but they don't ask questions and learn about what the politicians they elect are doing.
Jan, you do make a compelling point about civic engagement.
Many people do seem to limit their political involvement to voting on election day and then disengage. Understanding how government works and staying informed about what elected officials are doing is of paramount importance. It's true that distractions like entertainment can pull focus away from these responsibilities.
I find that encouraging more active participation and education about politics could lead to better-informed decisions and a more accountable government. Your thoughts?
I applaud you for understanding what I'm saying. Here's the way I look at it, the Declaration of Independence begins with "We the people..." and not We the government or We the elected officials. So it's every single person's responsibility and duty as an American citizen to be engaged in how their governments (local, state, and federal) are operating and providing services to the public. I like watching a football or basketball game like many people and there's nothing wrong with that. However, if you can rattle off a bunch of stats about your favorite team or your favorite player but you can name only one or two elected people that represent you, that's where there's a huge disconnect. Does that make sense?
Jan I think you and I may be on the same page. Essentially our current form of government and voting is incorrect and we are not following the process of voting as it should be.
Instead of continuing this cycle, I propose we stop voting until the cycle is reviewed: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-we-need-to-stop-voting-in-presidential
I appreciate the thoughts. As a reader of political psychology such as articles by Jonathan Haidt, I was in partial agreement with your points. We don't know actually if there is a roomful of yes-men in the Biden circle. History has shown that there has been insider disagreements before with other leaders. I would guess there are other reasons Biden remains in, such as family influence, a lack of his own self-awareness on his present condition, etc. But to omit Trump, who has spent his entire career surrounding himself with a cadre of sycophants, and choosing to keep or remove them based on their loyalty, is a prime case. And this does not involve supposition- there is a ream of documentation about his way of operating - esp those who used to be a part of his inner circle, but would be disposed for insufficient adherence to the group think. And if you come back to kiss the ring, well you can re-enter the fold.
As has been mentioned by other readers, your views as “an organizational psychologist” seem awfully one sided. Biden has surrounded himself by ‘yes’ people? And has stepped into a space where all he wants is to win? C’mon be fair. How about an analysis of the other candidates apparent inability to tell the truth? I have to admit, I’m a little disappointed.
I'm *very* disappointed in Adam Grant's post. I had admired him and had recommended his work to others. Criticizing Biden while seemingly giving Trump a free pass for greater failings seems grossly unfair to me. I hope Grant corrects this error with a follow-up post. If he doesn't, I'm afraid my opinion of him will be forever tarnished.
Just a little disappointed, Jill?
As a trained journalist, I can’t help but notice that org psychology also applies to mainstream media. Never has an independent free press been more important, yet the same behavior is playing out there too.
Adam, the premise that our voting decisions are based far more on emotion & gut instinct rather than reason, has been totally validated, IMO, by the fact that Donald Trump is the presumptive favorite to win the presidency. The man is a shameless pathological liar and grifter, yet he's favored to win the election. Go figure!!!
Thanks, Adam, but as I am old & tech-challenged, I've no idea what "Telegram is, or how to access it. But, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
You can email me at: kenderow1@yahoo.com OR text me at:
484-433-8962
Thanks!
Well said. I agree about the political parties and wish we did not have them. Your comment about weak leaders was right on!
We have two older men running for office. One of them spews hatred and revenge.
I didn't read your two articles about Biden after the debate. I'll assume they are valid.
What's interesting is that you assumed your expertise is well applied here and just from the titles of your pieces, and the very fact that you chose to write them, suggests that it isn't. You reacted, like so many others, to Biden's poor performance. But I think you are missing the bigger picture. Yes, his performance was abysmal. And yes, he may be caught in a group think trap. But his debate performance has little to do with that, just as Trump's performance does not suggest that he doesn't suffer the same problem.
Both politicians are older than should be electable. Both suffer concerning mental lapses - regularly. But the debate offers little insight into those issues other than it was Biden's moment of failure. And people on both sides, and even supposed independents, are overreacting to one data point. Trump's opportunity for failure may yet come. Therefore I don't think Biden's debate performance, or Trump's for that matter, should have been the basis for assessing entrapment in group think.
Thanks Adam. I've been looking for an intelligent perspective on the recent political controversies that have been developing since the election debate.
Just like your book "Granted," you helped shed some light on how to process and think through these issues.
Just did
I know Joe is determined to win, and he can by running instead for Vice President.
This takes the age issue off the table and he still gets to beat Trump and finish the great work he has accomplished.
Plus, the spotlight is now cast on Trump’s age!
More importantly, it would unite the Party to push for victory.
Unfortunately Joe’s horrible debate performance confirmed what voters already had feared about his facilities. No matter how well he subsequently performs campaigning, he cannot guarantee that he may not have future lapses. And this is what’s on most people’s hesitancy.
But running as VP would be a game-changer, injecting new blood into the campaign. They could run as a co-presidency, just as he successfully did with Obama.
This 2+2=5 would guarantee winning the White House, both chambers of House and saving the Supreme Court.
I know Joe loves the USA democracy and making this decision would hallmark his illustrious public service career and make real history.
David Hoo
From the podcast in #3, this bit really got me:
"A lot of money is being invested in infrastructure, like the building of roads and bridges, and if you travel around this country, you'll see those things being built that is now happening, but, but almost no money is going into investments of civic infrastructure, of soft infrastructure, of, of the institutions that make people into good citizens. I mean, you're, you're not spending money on things that would make families stronger. You're not spending money on things that would make public schools stronger. You're not making money on things that would make churches function more effectively, or community groups, all the things that have been falling apart over decades in the United States. And, I, I think that those soft things are not as valued. They are also harder to measure, but that is, actually, where the depth of the challenges in the US exist."
I'm reminded of reading about a generational cycle in the US, which repeats in sets of four. One of the discriminators among the four generation types is the value the generation places in institutions (at a very high, massively generalized level). Baby Boomers were seen as breaking down institutions (think 1960s) while their parents were institution-builders. I think this puts Millennials / Gen-Z in the institution building position, which I guess is good, because that is exactly the work they have ahead of them, in the world that Boomers and Gen-X are handing off. As a Gen-Xer, I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Thank you for this - informative and interesting.
Witnessing the incident in the US, I’d say that one has to have compassion to care about the opposition despite political differences.
China would be a great example for this?
Loved your convo with Anne! We listened to it with our 10 and 12 yo
Adam, your insights as an organizational psychologist offer a refreshing perspective on political leadership and decision-making. I completely agree that embracing dissent and avoiding the trap of escalation of commitment are crucial for effective leadership. Your approach of evaluating leaders based on character and competence rather than ideology is a compelling vision for a more thoughtful and less polarized political environment.
The discussions with Ian Bremmer and Anne Curzan also sound fascinating. It’s always valuable to place current events within a broader context and explore the nuances of language and communication. Thanks for sharing these thought-provoking articles and conversations!