The Right Man

In a recent comment, Roger Knights reminded me of a psychological theory known as "the Right Man syndrome." It was originally formulated by the science-fiction writer A.E. Van Vogt, and later picked up by the British author Colin Wilson, and still later endorsed by maverick futurist Robert Anton Wilson. 

The theory is relevant to my last post ("Ego on Trial") and also to a great many other conflicts and controversies in the modern world. Essentially, the Right Man is someone (either man or woman, in Colin Wilson's interpretation) whose fragile ego is threatened by any possibility of being wrong. As a matter of ego-defense, the Right Man must automatically and habitually insist that he is right in every situation, no matter what the circumstances and no matter what new information may have come to light.

To me, a prime example of this syndrome is found in those prosecutors who, in the 1980s, went after the proprietors and employees of various daycare facilities after the children alleged that they were victims of Satanic ritual abuse. The most famous of these cases was the McMartin Preschool case, but there were others. In all the cases that I'm aware of, the children's allegations were eventually found to be completely baseless; it turns out that very young children cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy, and are easily led to confabulate when asked leading questions by authority figures. Nevertheless, some of the prosecutors in these cases refused to admit they had been wrong in prosecuting - more accurately, persecuting - these innocent daycare professionals. In some instances the accused, who'd done absolutely nothing wrong, spent years in prison.

I assume that the Right Men (and Right Women, among them Janet Reno, who went on to mastermind the Waco debacle as Clinton's attorney general) responsible for these injustices lost no sleep over their actions; the Right Man is never wrong, and thus is a stranger to remorse and guilt.

The tragedy of history is that the Right Man, as the quintessential alpha male, too often ends up in a position of power, while more modest and self-effacing types, who have the good grace to own up to their mistakes, are frequently shunted aside as "weak" and "lacking leadership qualities." In this way, we end up with ego-driven, amoral, cunning, and destructive people as our top experts and maximum leaders. And we keep on propelling them to these high posts, because we never learn. 

Rather than attempt a detailed description of the Right Man syndrome, I'd prefer to link to a webpage that provides extensive excerpts from Colin Wilson's discussion of the subject.

This theory is far from the last word on the subject, but it does provide an interesting perspective, one that I find useful in understanding certain kinds of human motivation. 

Comments

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

I think this Right Man idea is a good observation; perhaps more prevalent in the United States today, not only among its leaders but also (and maybe especially) among many government underlings who happen to be in some position of regulatory power, however meager. Although a right-man complex can have significant impact when it operates in a person with regulatory authority, I think each of us needs to be on guard against developing a right-man attitude in ourselves regardless of our position in life.

[no one]

I also think the "right man" theory is salient.

People like to follow leaders and they want their leaders to express certainty in their views. Too often uncertainty is seen not as wise caution and thoughtfulness, but as weakness.

So these right man types do, indeed, tend to rise to positions of prominence in civic life as well as in the corporate and military sectors.

So often we are left asking, "How could serious people have made such a devastatingly blundering decision?" and conspiracy theories sprout up like mushrooms after a summer rain. They are mostly wrong and the truth actually lies in understanding an ego - or collection of egos - that has succumbed to the right man problem.

[organelle]

The left-hemisphere like aspects brain function under LH dominant cognitive and relational paradigms produces cultures, religions, dogmas, and governments in its image. In fact, anthropologists looking backward from the future would probably cite the emergence of a religion like Christianity or a government like the United States’ as direct evidence of a momentous developmental swing to the left (hemisphere). There are clues everywhere, from our language to our art... but most of them have to do with our rather abysmal lack of enacted intelligence as a species and as collectives. Or rather, the stilted substitution of -forms- of cognition that mimic intelligence’s hubris, but do not deliver its results.

Echoes of our hemispheric structure in our cultures and societies is profound. I would suggest Iain McGilchrist’s excellent book, The Master and His Emissary as a starting place to examine the topic. A single read is insufficient.

If we do not understand hemispheric lateralization, I suggest that we cannot understand our own minds and cultures.

Under LH dominance, evidence of error results not in correction, but entrenchment. If you say I am wrong, that -means- I am now 10% more correct than I was previously. If you show me -evidence- that I am wrong, that means I am now 100% more correct than I was previously.

For LH dominant cultures or people, evidence of being wrong simply means this: do it harder, now.

[The Wrong Man]

You're all wrong! Or are you right?

[Roger Knights]

some of the prosecutors in these cases refused to admit they had been wrong in prosecuting - more accurately, persecuting - these innocent daycare professionals.

Many prosecutors of unjustly imprisoned inmates who were later cleared by DNA evidence also refused to admit error.

[Marooned in Florida]

The Right Man syndrome is exacerbated by the fact that most prosecutors are elected, or appointed by politicians who find political advantage in being "tough on crime". In these cases the guilt or innocence of the accused becomes secondary to the possibility of a "win" for the prosecutor.