Wisdom in fragments

In my book, the reason I call figures like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., red leviathans is that they're actually serving a role that's necessary in a modern progressive revolution: they're the ones who say what is revolutionary and what isn't. Because it turns out that's not an easy question to answer.

The moment that really stuck with me was during the Egyptian revolution of 2011. Before Mubarak steps down, he turned the internet off for five days. And that was kind of a moment where it was like, wow—actually, in this hyper-technological world we live in, states can control it in ways they couldn't control printing presses or other forms of written technology as easily.

I think it was recognising that revolution was, in a way, the original problem of political thought. But in fact, constitutionalism is a Greek answer to the problem of revolution. You want to avoid revolution? Then you need to design a constitution in a certain way—so that it's balanced and less likely to be overturned by revolution.

There was really a sense that humanity had already reached its peak, and so the question wasn't what comes next that's better, but rather how to prevent decline and loss. If you had a good state—or even just an okay one—your main concern was to keep it, to stop it from falling apart. Because there wasn't anything better you could reasonably expect.

I think what's hard for us to appreciate today is that, for thousands of years of human history—let alone pre-history—there was never this sense, so common to us now, of a future likely to be radically different from the present. But that's a very recent development in human thought that really only dates back, as I argue in the book, to the 18th century.

Just being curious about yourself. You and I could read the same book on leadership or how to run a good team meeting, and we might take away the same five lessons, but we'd still apply them differently — even if we were trying to do exactly the same thing. That's because of our different personalities.

A lot of entrepreneurs don't make that switch. They cling to that brand identity of 'I'm an innovator,' still tinkering with the product while everyone else is saying, 'Hey, it's good enough — let's hire our first salesperson.' So when you're not really thinking about the alignment between your role and your identity, that's when problems can start.

As a psychotherapist, you have diagnostic categories for problems. There are specific techniques and therapies to apply. So the book really comes out of that frustration. If you think about science, it progresses from description, to categorisation, then to explanation, prediction, and control — and I wanted to feel like there was some science behind what I was doing.

That confidence and perseverance can sometimes lead you to keep charging ahead headfirst, when what's really needed is a pause and a course adjustment. I think that's the challenge — and I talk about that in the book — when strengths get overused.

I think that single trait — self-awareness — or rather, that skillset, outweighs all the others put together. You're filtering every experience you have with others through your own perceptions, your own biases, your own reactions and instincts. So you have to know yourself first before you can truly know anyone else.

In markets like books, art, music, and Hollywood, it's extremely hard to predict which products will become runaway hits. In the early days, if a high-status person embraces a product, it can have an enormous impact on its trajectory. Influential people adopt and endorse a product, which gives it an initial push.

Take any product and change the identity of the person or entity associated with it, and you fundamentally change how the world interprets and values that product. The product itself is 100% identical—it hasn't changed at all. What has changed is the identity, and in particular, the status of the person attached to it.

Status often has what's called an accumulative advantage property. If you get just a little bit of a head start, you can end up racing far ahead. So you end up with very small differences in quality or merit that get amplified over careers or competitions, eventually becoming very large differences over time.

Social platforms are bizarrely distortive of how the social world works. What these platforms do is take local phenomena and turn them into global phenomena. That shift takes audiences that were once local and turns them global. It also puts the anointment dynamic on steroids, because now your potential reach is basically unlimited.

Status is kinetic. Those who have it can give it to those who don't. Anointment refers to these ritualistic events that can be major: in a biblical sense, you're anointed by a king and all sorts of good things follow. In modern life, you're anointed if you're admitted to and graduate from a prestigious university. But anointment also happens on a much smaller scale, many times a day.

As you think this through, a lot of structure dissolves. And then the question becomes: what remains once all of that is gone? You could still choose to do these activities, of course, but there would no longer be any point—no instrumental need. You would only do them simply because you wanted to…

Philosopher & Director of Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford