Living in Entropy: Power in the Entropy Age, or Who Thrives When Things Fall Apart (E4 of 5 in Series)

Psychological Patterns of Power in the Entropy Age

Welcome back to PsyberSpace with Leslie Poston. In this fourth episode of a five-part series on living through the entropy age, we dig into the psychology of power in chaotic times. We explore how social dominance orientation, hoarding mindsets, and authoritarian tendencies allow some leaders to thrive amidst instability. We also discuss mechanisms of moral disengagement that turn harmful actions into perceived necessities, and the psychological costs of this behavior on society. This episode provides insights into how these patterns shape the behavior of power-holders and offer a lens to understand current socio-political dynamics. Join us next time as we conclude the series by exploring responses to entropy and how small forms of order and resistance persist.

00:00 Introduction to the Entropy Series
00:33 Recap of Previous Episodes
01:04 Exploring Power in Chaotic Conditions
02:06 Hoarding Power in Decaying Systems
05:17 Authoritarian Tendencies and Manufactured Order
08:40 Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement
11:46 The Psychological Costs of Power Hoarding
13:54 Conclusion and Looking Ahead

Resources:

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press. 

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. 

Christl, M. E., Pham, K. T., Rosenthal, A., & DePrince, A. P. (2024). When institutions harm those who depend on them: A scoping review of institutional betrayal. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. 

Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771–784. 

Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(11), 4086–4091. 

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. 

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. 

Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575–587. 

Stenner, K. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 

★ Support this podcast ★

Episode Transcript

Leslie Poston (00:12):
Welcome back to cyberspace. I'm your host,
Leslie Poston. If you're newhere, this is the show where we
look at how psychology, media,culture, and technology shape
the way you think, feel, work,and live. This week, we're
moving through a five episodeseries about the psychology of
living through the entropy age.In the first episode, we stayed

(00:35):
close to your inner life andtalked about emotional entropy,
existential anxiety, ontologicalinsecurity, and anticipatory
grief.
In the second episode, westepped out to look at system
decay and how institutions underlate stage capitalism shape our
sense of safety and possibility.In the third episode, we talked

(00:57):
about epistemic entropy,information overload, and what
happens when the truth stopsfeeling real. Today, we're going
a little deeper into power. Whobenefits from entropy, how they
think, and why chaoticconditions are not equally
costly to everyone. Whenstructures feel unstable, most

(01:19):
people experience that asstress.
For a smaller group, especiallythose who already hold wealth or
influence, entropy is often aresource, a shield, or even a
strategy. In this episode, we'lllearn more about the psychology
of power in these conditions.How tendencies like hierarchy

(01:39):
seeking, authoritarian thinking,and moral disengagement make it
easier for some leaders,oligarchs, and tech founders to
function comfortably whileeveryone else around them is
worn down. We're not going todiagnose specific individuals
today. Instead, we're going totalk about patterns that show up
again and again when people arerewarded for hoarding power in

(02:02):
systems that are alreadyfraying.
Let's start with a basicquestion. What does it mean to
hoard power when systems aredecaying? In material terms, we
can see it in the concentrationof wealth, in control over tech
platforms and infrastructure,and in access to political

(02:23):
influence. But there's also apsychological style that tends
to align with this pattern.Researchers who study social
dominance orientation look athow strongly a person prefers
hierarchies between groups.
People high on this trait seesociety as groups stacked on top
of each other, and they believeit's both natural and desirable

(02:47):
for some groups to dominateothers. They're more comfortable
with inequality, and they'remore likely to support harmful
policies that maintain statusdifferences. In a relatively
stable environment, this mightexpress itself as quiet support
for existing class privileges.In the entropy age where many

(03:07):
people are struggling with basiccosts, climate risk, and
political instability, apreference for hierarchy can
become sharper. If you alreadychoose to believe that some
people are, quote, meant to beon top, then system decay can
look less like a crisis and morelike confirmation that only the

(03:28):
strong, clever, or ruthless willsurvive, even if you're
suffering under the system.
There's also a more literal kindof hoarding that shows up, which
we've talked about in one of ourtwo episodes on the psychology
of billionaires. People at thetop of hierarchies may
accumulate property, cash, andassets far beyond any practical

(03:49):
need. They may invest in privatebunkers, exclusive enclaves, or
gated communities. From theoutside, this can look like
cartoon villainy.Psychologically, it often
reflects a scarcity mindsetpaired with the belief that
safety is an individual project,not a collective one.

(04:10):
The thought process goessomething like, If the system is
unstable, the answer is to buildmy own personal system within it
and to use any available toolsto keep my position. That can
include tax strategies,political lobbying, political
donations, and control overcommunication channels and

(04:30):
technology. Over time, this kindof hoarding does not just
protect individuals. It activelydeepens entropy for everyone
else by draining resources andattention away from public
goods. From a psychologicalangle, it's important to see
that this style of thinking isnot neutral.

(04:51):
It is supported and rewarded bycultures that equate human worth
with monetary net worth thatcelebrate, quote, winners who
break norms no matter the costor consequence and that present
structural advantage asindividual genius. In that
environment, hoarders of powertry to propagandize the populace

(05:12):
to see hoarding as a virtuerather than harm. Another
cluster of research that helpsexplain why some people thrive
in chaotic conditions looks atauthoritarian tendencies. Work
on authoritarianism identifies afew recurring themes. One is a
strong preference for order andconformity within one's in group

(05:36):
paired with hostility towardthose seen as outsiders or rule
breakers.
Another is a tendency tomisplace trust by trusting
strong leaders who presentthemselves as decisive and to
tolerate or even applaud harshmeasures against perceived
threats. In unstable times,authoritarian styles can feel

(05:59):
reassuring to some people, whichwe covered more deeply in the
episodes about the psychology ofauthoritarianism and the
psychology of mass delusion. Ifyou're afraid of change or loss,
a leader who says I alone canfix it or I will restore order
can sound appealing. For peoplewho already hold power, chaos

(06:20):
can be an opportunity toposition themselves as the only
ones capable of restoringcontrol. There's a paradox here.
Authoritarian movements oftenmarket themselves as defenders
of stability, tradition, andsafety. Yet they frequently rely
on tactics that increaseinstability for others, attacks

(06:42):
on independent media and thecourts, threats against
marginalized groups, erosion ofcivil rights, and the deliberate
seeding of fear and confusion.This is where the idea of
manufactured order comes in. Ina complex interconnected
society, no one person can trulycontrol outcomes. What

(07:04):
authoritarian leaders can do iscreate the appearance of order
for their base by drawing sharplines between us and them, by
cracking down on dissent, and bypresenting dissenters as sources
of chaos.
From a psychological point ofview, this taps into the same
existential anxieties we talkedabout in episode one. When

(07:28):
people are afraid, they maytrade away complexity and nuance
for clear stories even if thosestories are inaccurate or
harmful. Leaders who arecomfortable exploiting that fear
are often those who are lessdisturbed by the costs their
actions impose on others. Fortech founders and corporate
leaders, for example, there's asneakier version of this

(07:50):
pattern. It shows up in slogansabout disruption or moving fast
and breaking things.
The promise is that breakingexisting systems will lead to
innovative new ones, but thereality is that disruption is
profitable for those at the top,and the costs of those broken
systems are borne by workers,users, the environment, and

(08:12):
communities. In both cases, thepsychology is similar. There's
comfort with using turbulence asraw material and a belief that
if harm occurs along the way,it's either justified by the
outcome or simply not theirconcern. One question that often
comes up is how can people atthe top tolerate the level of

(08:35):
harm that system decay causes,especially when they're
contributing to it? Bandura andothers who study moral
disengagement have describedseveral mechanisms that allow
people to participate in harmfulsystems without experiencing
overwhelming guilt or cognitivedissonance.
One mechanism is moraljustification. Harmful actions

(08:58):
are reframed as serving a highergood. For example, layoffs are
described as necessary for thehealth of the company, or harsh
policies are framed asprotecting freedom or defending
tradition. Once the action iswrapped in a moral story, it
becomes easier to support. Well,at least until it causes moral

(09:19):
injury in the people who becomecogs in the system.
Another mechanism is euphemisticlabeling. Neutral or positive
language is used to describenegative outcomes. Civilian
deaths are called collateraldamage. Predatory products are
called innovative financialinstruments. A destructive

(09:39):
algorithm is called anengagement optimization tool.
This language creates distancebetween the decision and its
human impact. A third mechanismis diffusion or the displacement
of responsibility. Decisions areportrayed as the result of
market forces, shareholderdemands, mysterious algorithms,

(10:01):
or the system in a way thatmakes them seem inevitable.
Individuals can say I was justfollowing the policy or the data
made me do it even when they hadreal choices. We're seeing this
kind of inevitable languagecentered on AI right now as
people who are overinvested init try to make it seem

(10:22):
inevitable.
There's also dehumanization andvictim blaming as tactics.
Groups harmed by policies orproducts are portrayed as less
deserving, less competent, orresponsible for their own
suffering. If people in povertyare framed as lazy, if sick
people are framed as careless,or if persecuted groups are

(10:43):
framed as dangerous, then harmsagainst them can be rationalized
as unfortunate but acceptable.These mechanisms of moral
disengagement are not limited toany one party or sector. You can
see them in corporate language,political speeches, investor
presentations, and even techplatform policies.

(11:05):
Over time, repeated exposure tothis framing can reshape how
ordinary people talk about harmas well. In an entropy age,
moral disengagement from the topaccelerates decay. When leaders
don't fully register the damagetheir choices cause or when they
have ready made stories thatconvert harm into necessity,

(11:27):
there is little internalpressure to change course.
Instead, harm is normalized andwoven into the background of
daily life. It would be easy toend here with a simple story.
Powerful people are bad, andeveryone else is good. But
reality is more complicated thanthat. So I want to close by

(11:47):
focusing on what these patternsmean for those who are not at
the top of the hierarchy. Onecost is chronic mistrust. When
we see leaders, executives, orfounders repeatedly deflect
responsibility, we learn thatofficial narratives can't be
taken at face value.
That doesn't mean we becomeconspiracy theorists, at least

(12:09):
we hope not, but it does mean wefeel we're on our own when it
comes to interpreting events andprotecting ourselves. Another
cost is learned powerlessness ata collective level. If attempts
to voice concerns, organize, orpush for change are repeatedly
ignored or punished, it's easyto draw the conclusion that

(12:30):
nothing you do will matter. Thatconclusion is wrong, but it is
understandable given theevidence many of us see. I
talked about getting past thison a previous episode.
There's also a more subtleemotional cost. When you watch
others treat harm as acceptable,especially harm to groups you
care about, it can create a deepsense of moral injury. It's

(12:53):
painful to see suffering thatdoesn't have to happen and to
know that people with resourceschoose other priorities. The
pain can sit under the surfaceas anger, grief, or numbness. At
the same time, it's important totry not to internalize the
values of those who benefit mostfrom entropy.

(13:13):
We live in a culture that oftenpresents hoarding, domination,
and moral disengagement asnormal business practice or as
smart strategy. It can bereassuring to remember that
these are not the only ways tobe human. Just as there are
psychological patterns thatalign with hoarding and
authoritarian thinking, thereare patterns that support care,

(13:36):
fairness, and solidarity. Thereare leaders who feel the weight
of their choices and who work toreduce harm. There are
communities that shareresources, build alternative
structures, and who refuse totreat other people as collateral
damage.
In this fourth part of theEntropy series, we looked at

(13:57):
power. We've talked about howsocial dominance orientation and
hoarding mindsets make it easierfor some people to feel
comfortable in decaying systems.We touched on authoritarian
tendencies and the promise ofmanufactured order. We talked
through mechanisms of moraldisengagement that allow harm to
be framed as necessary orinevitable, and we named some of

(14:20):
the psychological costs thatfall on everyone else when this
happens. Have any of this helpedyou make sense of the behavior
of leaders, corporations, ormovements that you've been
watching?
I hope it gives you a way to seetheir choices as part of
recognizable patterns and not asmysterious or all powerful. If
this episode resonated, share itwith a friend who may have been

(14:42):
saying, I just don't understandhow these people sleep at night,
and who might appreciate a morepsychological lens on that
question. The show notes willinclude research and resources
as always if you want to readmore about the concepts we've
touched on. Next time in thefinal episode of the Entropy
series, we'll talk aboutresponses. We'll explore how

(15:04):
people create small, groundedforms of order and resistance
and how tactical whimsy, joy,and connection can coexist with
clear eyed awareness of decay.
Thanks for listening toPsyberSpace. This is your host,
Leslie Poston, signing off.Remember to stay curious, and
tune in tomorrow for the nextepisode in the series on

(15:24):
entropy.