Attention all fans of English cynicism, in the style of James Bond or Winston Churchill. Jamil Zaki, professor of psychology at the prestigious Stanford University, director of the Stanford Social Neuroscience Lab and author of the recent Hope for Cynics: The surprising science of Human Goodnesshas a message for you: “If cynicism were a pill, it would be poison.” With scientific evidence to back it up, this specialist, himself a “recovering cynic,” deconstructs the various myths surrounding this personality trait, starting with the idea that it is a sign of superior intelligence.
In reality, cynics perform worse on cognitive tests than others, and even suffer more in terms of mental and physical health. Fans of Steve Jobs, the brilliant-cynical founder of Apple, will be disappointed: this is not a career booster either. Not to mention the propensity of cynics to be more enthusiastic about authoritarian leaders and populism… It is no coincidence, therefore, that most of the authoritarian leaders of the century such as Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un themselves carry the reputation of being cynical. While more and more of us are falling into this trap, Jamil Zaki gives L’Express some tips for getting out of it (but without falling into naivety). Particularly in business, where cynicism often rhymes with poor performance, burnout and cheating… Too bad for Steve Jobs. Jamil Zaki seems to prefer the method of Satya Nadella, the boss of Microsoft. Interview.
L’Express: Between Steve Jobs and Winston Churchill, cynicism has often been presented as a sign of intelligence. According to your research, however, not only is this false, but cynics also suffer more than other individuals in almost every way…
Jamil Zaki : Absolutely! Of course, I am not talking about the eponymous school of Greek philosophy founded in antiquity, but about the meaning that modern psychologists give to this term to designate a propensity to think that most people are selfish, greedy and dishonest. Now, although this trait is socially valued in many cultures, especially in the United Kingdom (many English people perceive cynicism as the height of chic and wisdom!), it is in fact deleterious on many levels – and largely mythologized.
To name just a few examples, which have been scientifically supported: cynical people are less successful than Those who are not cynical on cognitive tests have less developed social intelligence, suffer in terms of mental and physical health (depression, loneliness, alcohol abuse, more frequent heart diseases, lower life expectancy) and earn less money during their careers… And on a different note, cynical people (who therefore trust their fellow citizens less) tend to be more enthusiastic about authoritarian leaders and populism. In short: if cynicism were a pill, it would be a poison.
Many authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un (and many populist leaders like Donald Trump) have a reputation for being cynical. Is this any wonder?
No. There is a connection between authoritarianism (and populism) and cynicism. First, people who do not trust their fellow citizens are more interested in “strongman” leaders who will keep them safe, even at the cost of their personal freedom. Political leaders such as Putin or Kim Jong-un therefore logically reproduce what a cynical person would tend to turn to. But the connection between authoritarianism and cynicism does not end there: authoritarian leaders often use propaganda to stoke cynicism in their populations. As Hannah Arendt wrote in her writings on totalitarianism (I paraphrase), the goal of an autocrat is not to convince people that his point of view is the truth, but rather to get them to give up the idea that anything can be true. In short, it is a system of communicating vessels.
In your book, you explain that more and more of us are sinking into cynicism, decade after decade. Why is that?
It’s hard to give you a rigorous answer. History is not an infinitely reproducible experiment in which we could isolate certain variables in order to study their impact. However, we can note that the period during which the curve of trust in others fell drastically (while it was very high between the 1950s and 1970s) is between the 1980s and 2018, a period marked by the financial crisis of 2008, and during which inequalities increased in the United States. However, the scientific literature is clear on this point: the more inequalities increase in a society, the more individuals lose trust in others and withdraw into cynicism. This is a first element.
The second point that could explain this increase in cynicism is, I believe, the media (don’t hold it against me). Studies have reported a near tripling, since the year 2000, of the quantity of negative information disseminated by these channels. However, here again, recent scientific literature shows that the more people inform themselves, the more cynical they become about the world around them. In the United States, the biggest consumers of television news think that violent crimes are everywhere and more numerous than in the past, while this idea is contradicted by FBI data (violent crimes are significantly less numerous than they were in past decades). Not to mention social networks, which produce more or less the same effects as the media, with the particularity that our respective algorithms are literally designed to offer us content that plays on our fears.
You yourself are a “recovering” cynic… But can one really get rid of such a flaw?
This is the whole point of my book. (laugh) : to show that when you look at the science, it becomes clear that cynicism is not as “chic” as some people think, but it is also possible to fight it. Sure, some cynicism is genetic, but it is a minority form. Most people acquire this trait as a result of a bad experience or trauma. So we can reverse the trend by working on ourselves. You know, one of the main lessons of all the psychological and neuroscientific studies of the last hundred years is that we change a lot more than we think during our lives… But we have to want to. And when we are convinced that we can never change, we are less inclined to try.
Despite the (many) negative effects you list, are cynical people necessarily wrong in their judgment of others?
Actually, they are wrong. Decades of science have shown that the average person is more trustworthy, more generous, more open-minded, and more friendly than we think. That’s not to say that people don’t do horrible things every day. But the average person underestimates their peers. Put simply, cynics are no more perceptive than anyone else. Today, we tend to scoff at the notion of “hope,” which is seen as the preserve of the naive or the privileged. But make no mistake: those who wear glasses that cloud their view of the world are the cynics.
“Naive people and cynics are more alike than you might think.”
If cynicism is harmful, isn’t overconfidence in others just as harmful?
Naive people and cynics are more alike than you might think, in that they both have a pre-established conclusion that they seek to validate at all costs (everything is bad or everything is good). But in between, there is room for what I call “hopeful skepticism.” [NDLR : traduction de “hopeful scepticism”]. While the naive and the cynical think like lawyers who defend their cause tooth and nail, skeptics think like scientists. They do not have a general idea about others but evaluate each situation and each person on a case-by-case basis (which does not prevent them from being suspicious of others. You just do not draw conclusions about society as a whole). Hopeful skepticism is therefore about combining this scientific mindset with the knowledge that our default assumptions are probably more negative than what is in reality.
The fact remains that many politicians and prominent bosses such as Steve Jobs are known for their cynicism…
No one will ever know whether a warm and friendly Steve Jobs would have failed or succeeded more. But what we do know is that cynicism is not a career booster: unpleasant people have been shown to gain no more power than pleasant people. Why is that? Because While they know how to dominate and intimidate others, they are incapable of forming coalitions and collaborating. However, to succeed professionally, it is essential to combine these two facets (knowing how to dominate and collaborate). Let’s ask the question differently: would a more sympathetic Steve Jobs have been even more successful than the one we knew? It is quite possible.
The case of Satya Nadella, who came to the helm of Microsoft in 2014, after years under the very cynical Steve Ballmer (who had led the company adrift) seems to me to be very eloquent on this point. After his arrival, Nadella established a more collaborative, open and caring corporate culture. Everyone said to themselves: “he’s too nice. He’s not Steve Jobs”. The result: creativity and productivity have increased tenfold, and the value of the company has increased by 1000% over the last ten years. As Dan Chiaburu (from Texas A&M) and his co-authors have shown in a study, cynicism actually conditions a multitude of negative results at work, poor performance, burnout, cheating, etc.
You also work with companies. What advice would you give to a manager to avoid letting cynicism set in within their teams?
When I meet with a new company, the first thing I do is anonymously survey employees and ask them how much they want collaboration to be at the center of their work. Every time I’ve done this, the results I get are the same: people desperately want to collaborate, cooperate, and help each other, but they don’t know that the vast majority of their employees want that too. Why? Because all it takes is one person in the company to be cynical, and everyone sees it. So the first thing I’d say to a business owner is: collect that data and show it to your employees!
.