Is Life Becoming a Toxic Reality Show?

The acceptance and promotion of extreme and pathological personalities and behavior has taken us down a dangerous path.

by Rebekah Wanic

Much has been made of the problematic nature of social media and its algorithms in supporting social division, loneliness, and glorification of unhealthy behaviors and promoting self-diagnosis of mental illness. Some have recently argued that these problems are only going to accelerate, as AI becomes more sophisticated. While there may be benefits, a fairly large literature is accumulating to suggest that interactions with social media can produce or facilitate many outcomes that are socially and/or individually damaging.

One problem associated with the increased presence of media in daily life is it’s influence on perceptions of reality and the reinforcement of undesirable behavior - extreme, negative and dramatic individuals and stories are more likely to garner attention, clicks, viewership and therefore profit. Such an incentive structure fuels the tendency of media outlets to seek and promote information about a world that does not comport with reality and is decidedly negative.

This problem is not limited to presentation of stories about current events but also permeates much of entertainment. Consider the sustained popularity of “reality” TV. Think too about the large number of popular TV characters for whom “genius” is paired with abrasiveness or rudeness. It is the popularity of these boorish purveyors of disrespect that opens the door for acceptance of even more problematic personalities.

In the realm of politics, new attention has been focused on the work of Andrzej Lobaczewski, who coined the term “pathocracy” to describe a government made up of people with personality disorders and in his work discussed how their destructive influence then spreads. A BPS (British Psychological Society) blog describes part of the process, once a leader with pathology is in power:

“While some members of the ruling class are appalled by the brutality and irresponsibility of the leader and his acolytes, his disordered personality appeals to some psychologically normal individuals. They find him charismatic. His impulsiveness is mistaken for decisiveness; his narcissism for confidence; his recklessness for fearlessness.”

This passage is likely to conjure up specific historic and modern day examples in the mind of readers. From the current American arena, prime examples might be Donald Trump, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or Marjorie Taylor Greene, although the political landscape is rife with choices. Those politicians of whom their opponents often wonder, “Who could possibly vote for them?” The key idea here is that their behavior is not interpreted as pathological by (some) supporters.

Of course, the presence of such personalities in politics is somewhat unsurprising, as research suggests that narcissists are drawn to participation in politics. The pattern holds, too, in other leadership settings. As Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic argues, companies tend to reward arrogance by weighting confidence and narcissism over competence, leading to the promotion of the wrong individuals. And that is exactly the point - when the reinforcement structure is broken, the outcomes are likely to be undesirable.

Even outside of politics, pathological behavior is rewarded. For example, in the age of “oppression Olympics” many have become obsessed with manufacturing suffering and victimhood status is sought and deemed a virtue. This has led to the expansion of pathological displays to demonstrate one’s status as a victim. No longer are people motivated to keep their worst traits under control, to take personal ownership for a negative outcome, or to deal with issues behind closed doors - to do so would garner no attention. And to suggest that one do so (that is, to try to control or not burden larger society with their short-comings) would be maligned as judgmental or privileged. There is a direct connection with this trend and pathology as research has suggested that the “virtuous victimhood” tactic is employed more by those with dark triad traits, and such individuals often successfully manipulate society to reward their parasitism.

Thus, wokeness has not only weaponized kindness, but it’s “virtues” have been usurped by the pathological to serve their own ends. And, in public discourse discussion of these problematic trends is cut off because of further manipulation and pathology that labels all pushback as driven by “phobics” or “-ists” of various kinds. Thus, problematic behavior is protected from criticism and punishment, and those who indulge their pathology are rewarded with attention and allowed to continue using their abusive tactics. Take, for example, the universities that have decided to praise inappropriate student behavior rather than condemn and regulate it.

While the causes of social dysfunction are many, a climate that supports the presence of pathological personalities in public life - either explicitly by electing them and/or promoting them on media outlets or implicitly by giving them attention through shares and comments - and that does nothing to punish bad behavior no doubt contributes. This sets the stage for greater and greater slippage of harmful behavior into public life. In supporting pathocracy, more extreme behaviors begin to creep in as acceptable within politics, for example. Research highlights that acceptance of political violence has been rising in recent years. Unsurprisingly then, there is some evidence that politically violent behavior is on the rise as well, with an attack occurring in the office of a Virginia politician just the other day.

This acceptance of extremity may also be a consequence of the push to increasingly promote diversity in all aspects of life. Because most Western countries are already diverse, the diversification activists must seek more and more extreme variations to endorse. Consider here the intrusion of adult sexuality into children’s lives. Drag queen story hours have exploded in recent years, supported by progressives as a way to introduce children to gender diversity while being maligned by others as inappropriate and indoctrinating. Once this practice became acceptable enough, the boundary was then pushed to create all-ages drag shows, acts that have generated significant outrage in response to video of adults gyrating sexually next to children. This progression is supported by an environment that endorses, reinforces and/or fails to punish the harmful or offensive extremes. This is not an issue of supporting trans-rights or enacting discrimination. Most would agree that explicit exposure to adult sexuality is not appropriate for young children - imagine instead burlesque story hour or an all-ages striptease.

None of these trends toward disorder are likely to change unless concerted action is taken to adjust the reinforcement structures and incentives. It is time to take back the public arena and work to make things more civil. It starts with individual ownership of behavior and a commitment to avoid engaging in immature, violent or abusive actions. Beyond this, it is time to consider with great care our political choices and begin holding politicians to a higher standard of behavior. Others have called for greater regulation of social media, particularly for children, as well.

Collectively, we must shift away from tolerating and reinforcing damaging extremity and return to judging actions and behavior based on a rational standard of appropriateness - one that takes into account where a behavior takes place, with whom and with what consequence. While there will be variation in perception of where the standard lies, it’s time to take a stand for greater normalcy. The more we are surrounded by pathology, the more normalized it becomes. Let us not continue down this path, becoming a society that can no longer differentiate the deranged from the reasonable, the irrational from the sound, by continuing to reward the former and crowd out the latter.