Economist Robin Hanson Suggests Societal Preference for "Savvy" Leaders Over Truth-Tellers

George Mason University economist and author Robin Hanson recently sparked discussion with a social media post asserting a societal preference for leaders adept at strategic communication over those who prioritize unvarnished truth. Professor Hanson, known for his unconventional insights into human behavior and author of "The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life," posited that structures in society select for "savvy" individuals in elite positions.

"Many structures in our society function to select for savvy. People seem to prefer their elites to have and show savvy. They'd rather be lied to by a leader skilled at lying to everyone, than be told the truth by a leader who can't help but tell the truth to outsiders as well," Hanson stated in the tweet. This observation aligns with his broader work on hidden motives, suggesting that individuals and groups often operate based on implicit incentives and social signaling, rather than purely rational or fact-driven considerations.

Hanson's perspective suggests that perceived competence and the ability to manage public perception, even through deception, may be valued more than strict factual honesty in leadership. His work frequently explores how people present themselves and their motives in socially acceptable ways, often masking underlying, less flattering realities. This "press secretary" function of the conscious mind, as he describes it, aims to maintain a high-minded image.

However, academic research on public perception of leaders presents a more nuanced picture. A study on honesty in leadership indicated that while dishonest candidates might win elections, they are often less effective in leading groups towards common goals. Conversely, research from University College London found that a significant majority of UK voters (71%) prioritize honesty in political leaders over policy delivery, suggesting a strong public desire for integrity.

Further studies delve into the distinction between "fact-speaking" and "belief-speaking" in political communication. While fact-speaking emphasizes factual accuracy, belief-speaking prioritizes authentic expression of personal conviction, even if it deviates from objective truth. Some voters may interpret a leader's "belief-speaking" as a form of honesty or authenticity, potentially explaining why leaders perceived as "savvy" or "authentic" might gain support despite factual inaccuracies. This complex interplay between perceived authenticity, factual truth, and effective leadership continues to be a focal point in political and social science discourse.