I’ve had an interesting conversation with another user on Substack. I think there are several important lessons here that I want to discuss as it applies to the liberty and skeptic movements as a whole, because until we really internalize these lessons we’re going to be stuck spinning our wheels and, frankly, people will continue to not take us seriously.

I found this user because he was posting some anti-government memes and I thought, oh - this guy gets it! But then everything fell apart. The same person posting anti-government memes also thinks gravity is fake, the earth stands still (no rotation, no orbit around the sun), and basically all of modern physics is a lie. Satellites are fake (they’re just balloons apparently) and every picture from space is a NASA CGI fake.

Why am I sharing my run in with this person? Because this position is fundamentally a self-defeating one and I see it all the time.

The Wrong Rabbithole

There are some serious rabbit holes out there on the internet, that lead down some very uncomfortable truths. For instance, the CIA really did run a secretive program called MKULTRA. The U.S. government really did torture people in Abu Ghraib. Operation Paperclip really did bring thousands of Nazi scientists (many implicated in crimes) to the U.S. instead of putting them in prison. These are documented facts that are well proven, and yet the government tried (and crucially, failed) to keep them secret.

Then there’s the fake rabbit holes. The idea that the earth is flat, gravity isn’t real, or that the government possesses incredible secret spacecraft with anti-gravity tech that nobody knows about.

Why are these a problem?

1. They waste your time.

2. They confuse you and disable your ability to reason. Spend enough time reading this nonsense and you risk actually going crazy.

3. They make everything seem like a lie, which erodes your ability to trust in the basic reality of what’s around you, which in turn stops you from enacting meaningful change in your life.

4. They discredit you when you talk to people who can think and reason, and therefore, unfortunately, often discredit all of the other positions you hold too, even if they happen to be correct. Basically, you get labeled a raving lunatic and the metaphorical baby is thrown out with the bathwater.

5. They make the government seem far more powerful than it really is.

Discrediting Yourself

Let’s talk about point 4 in a bit more detail first.

Imagine you approach a normie friend and tell them “We don’t need a coercive monopoly on violence to have roads. The government is both evil and inefficient and should be abolished. We can figure out how to build roads without violence.”

That’s a tough pill to swallow. What are you really saying? You’re not just making a claim about roads. That would be fairly trivial.

No - you’re actually challenging the fundamental worldview underpinning everything this person believes about society. If the government isn’t necessary, something they’ve been told since they were a small child, then they’ve been lied to. By their parents, by their teachers, by their “elected” “leaders”. The news broadcasts, the books, everything they know about reality.

Man, are they going to fight you hard on this. They will do whatever mental gymnastics are required to disprove you, even if your position is unassailable. You therefore already have a difficult proposition ahead of you; but now imagine that in addition to that you say, “Oh, and the earth is flat.”

Boom. Instant dismissal. Now your normie friend can safely categorize you as a crazy person - as someone who is not to be taken seriously. “Phew - I knew they were wrong about that taxation is slavery thing.”

Your ability to reach people is inversely proportional to how crazy you sound, and libertarians and anarchists already sound pretty crazy just advocating for liberty (as sad as that is).

Government is not omnipotent

But perhaps the bigger problem is not what thinking this way does to others opinion of you - it’s what it does to your own worldview.

If everything is a lie. If everything is a psyop or a false flag, then government becomes this near-omnipotent boogie monster. A leviathan not just in size and evil, but in competence. And that’s a tough pill to swallow.

How can we fight back against an omnipotent power that has super advanced secret anti-gravity ships? That can keep secrets like “gravity is fake” for centuries? We can’t.

And if you believe this, you’re disabling your own abilities before we even get started.

It’s the same kind of position that sees everything as a false flag. “Oh, look, that explosion happened! It couldn’t have been terrorists, it must have been the government!”

Do governments blow stuff up and pretend it was someone else with false flags? Yes, sometimes.

Do actual terrorists exist who also blow stuff up? Yes, sometimes.

Is everything a government false flag or psyop? No.

And in thinking it is, we give the government far more credit than they deserve. In reality, some things are done moderately competently by the government. For instance, they’re pretty good at incarcerating (kidnapping) people. They’ve had a lot of practice, after all.

It’s a bizarre position to be in - to both disclaim the government as a bunch of corrupt, evil and incompetent psychopaths, while also saying they’re exceptionally good at keeping secrets and have all of these super secret technologies.

The “They Admit it!” fallacy

Notice what’s happening in this conversation below.

This person is both using NASA as a source to substantiate his opinion and then immediately after that discrediting NASA as a biased source and saying it proves nothing. He even calls me stupid, for good measure.

You might think I’m just screenshotting this to make fun of this person contradicting themselves; but there is another, bigger reason. I call it the “They Admit It!” fallacy. I see it in the conspiracy theorist community all the time.

They say the government is constantly lying about everything, but as soon as someone in the government happens to say something that they agree with, suddenly it’s trustworthy. “They admitted it!” Oh, the people who are liars admitted something? And now we trust them? But if they contradict us they’re categorically worthless?

A position like this exists in a state of constant cognitive dissonance.

Skepticism is a Method, not a Knee-Jerk Reaction

Real skepticism is not automatically believing the opposite of whatever NASA, the government, or the news says. If an institution makes a claim and you reflexively invert it, that institution is still doing your thinking for you.

The standard you use to determine if something is true should remain the same no matter who is speaking. Just because someone in the skeptic community says something, doesn’t automatically make it true.

The questions we should be asking ourselves are:

What exactly is the claim? What evidence supports it? Can any of that evidence be checked independently? What would prove the claim wrong?

The user who prompted this post would not accept any evidence or logic that contradicted his belief. Every objection became further evidence that the deception was even larger than it appeared. At that point, the belief was no longer a conclusion drawn from evidence. It had become an article of faith.

Extreme certainty in the face of limited evidence is a warning sign, especially when honest questions produce anger instead of answers. Anger does not prove that a claim is false, but it may show that the belief has become part of someone’s identity and is no longer being tested honestly.

Can we trust the government?

The anarchist in me wants to scream, “No!”

But, in fact, that would be too simplistic.

A government source is not true merely because it is official. It’s also not false merely because it is official. The same applies to an anonymous account, a viral video, an alternative-media personality, or a meme. Evidence does not become stronger because it confirms what we already suspect.

The liberty movement cannot afford to replace blind trust in institutions with blind distrust of reality. Our actual argument is already radical: no person acquires the moral right to coerce another by winning an election, wearing a badge, or acting through an agency. We do not need fake physics, omnipotent secret cabals, or a theory that explains every explosion, election, war, and technological development. The documented record of what governments do is damning enough.

Government is dangerous because it holds coercive power, not because it is all-knowing or all-capable. Governments contain rival factions, make mistakes, lose wars, expose their own crimes, leak secrets, and frequently fail at what they attempt. They can also lie, coordinate, conceal wrongdoing, and exploit events they did not create.

That distinction matters because omnipotence produces fatalism. If every event is scripted, every witness is controlled, every photograph is fabricated, and every contrary fact proves the cover-up, then nothing can be known and nothing can be done.

That is not skepticism. It is surrender.

You surrender your judgment, your peace of mind, and your ability to act. The state does not have to defeat you; your belief in its omnipotence has already convinced you that resistance is futile.

Good skepticism should make us harder to fool and more capable of acting. It should help us identify real abuses, protect ourselves, reduce our dependence on coercive institutions, and build voluntary alternatives. If a worldview instead leaves us terrified of an unbeatable enemy and unable to trust anything around us, it has not liberated us. It has merely found another way to disable us.

That is the standard we need: hard to fool, but still willing to learn.

Want to support my work? I’ve made lookoutmap.com to help people relocate to freer states and counties, locate Flock cameras around their communities, and build routes to avoid them. Becoming a supporter gets you access to more map features and helps support my work.

Have you ever tried to talk to a family member about liberty and run into a wall? No matter how good the arguments you make, they just don’t get it. Take the non-aggression principle: it’s so simple! It elevates consent to the primary determination of whether an action is moral or not. It’s probably the simplest, most self-evident moral framework in existence, far simpler to understand than the endless inconsistencies and contradictions found in government or religious law.

And yet - to this day I’ve only ever convinced one person, my wife. Everyone else stubbornly refuses to change their minds. From people who don’t even understand the basics, to the ones who seem to understand and even agree on some surface level, but the next time you talk to them, it’s like the past conversation never happened. They didn’t get enlightened, they just nodded to placate you and then went right back to their regular lives.

For years I assumed I was just not good enough at putting my point across. If only I was a better orator, more charismatic, had better arguments, I could finally “convert” my friends and family to my viewpoint.

It turns out, my approach had been wrong. My entire worldview was a projection of my own desire for freedom unto others. Most people don’t care about freedom. We discussed that in part 1. Those people are essentially immune to arguments.

Robert Kegan, a Harvard developmental psychologist, found that more than half of adults never develop past the “socialized” developmental phase where their identity comes almost entirely from their social milieu.

These people simply haven’t developed the ability to reason for themselves, to form their own opinions. Key & Peele have a fantastic sketch about this here, it’s both funny and true.

When you’re trying to convince them to change their mind and stop supporting another war, more taxes, or some specific regulation that infringes on your liberty, you’re not just asking them to think for themselves and make up their own mind - something they haven’t developed the psychological ability to do - you’re also asking them to go against the grain of the social group they’re in - an unthinkable proposition to the majority, for whom conformism has become a way of life (just look at most people’s reaction to COVID mandates).

Arrested Development

As parents we often worry whether our kids are talking at the right level, if the fact that they repeatedly skip from twelve to fourteen when counting is okay, and so on. Yet we almost never wonder about the development stage an adult is at.

Kegan makes the point that the human mind can stall, in fact, most minds have. In part 1 we went over the different developmental stages. Two thirds of adults never make it past the first three stages. The last two stages, the ones where people can actually form their own opinions and do something independent with their lives? Only about one third make it here.

That’s not to say that people stuck in stage 3 are stupid. I’ve met a staggering number of smart people who cannot think for themselves. They can excel at their jobs, at mathematics, at science, at any number of things, all while not holding a single original thought in their brain.

I had a friend in high school who was academically the smartest kid in our year. He had good grades, excelled at mathematics, and always knew the answer to anything the teacher would ask. But he was deeply Catholic, and I had just started thinking critically about religion at this time. I tried to talk to him, to ask questions, to make arguments, and he would just shut down. I was watching this very smart young man’s brain stall and sputter. He would become so uncomfortable he had to physically excuse himself and leave the room because his brain couldn’t handle the cognitive dissonance created by my questions (which would highlight simple contradictions in the bible) and his beliefs.

I’m not here to pick on Catholics. It’s the same with anyone who holds strongly to any dogma and can’t defend it with reasoning - because they didn’t arrive at it with reasoning. You can’t reason someone out of religion because they were never reasoned into it.

The “trust the science” scientists who don’t want you looking at the studies too closely, they’re the same. The liberals who push the LGBT agenda, the conservatives who push “back the blue”. None of these people realize their thoughts are not their own.

The Exploitable Masses

Because modern life places an ever-increasing number of demands upon us that require independent thought:

• Taking our kids out of school and homeschooling them so they don’t become brainwashed, illiterate automatons,

• Homesteading and growing our own food so we can eat healthy instead of depleted, pesticide-ridden produce,

• Going off-grid to become resilient as the grid continues to degrade,

• Saving for retirement independently without relying on government benefits or dollar-pegged investment funds,

• Finding a partner who will have the willpower to stand up for your kids when the government wants to vaccinate them with yet another cocktail of drugs,

• Making changes to your life and environment so that your body doesn’t become increasingly toxified and infertile,

• etc.

But people stuck in stage 3 cannot accomplish these tasks, and so they have mounting anxiety. This inability to self-actualize combined with anxiety stemming from an ever-increasing number of demands placed by modern life creates the perfect citizen.

Think about this from the government’s perspective. If you’re a psychopath (1-4% of the population) and you want to control others, people stuck in stage 3 are perfect. They’re often agreeable and psychologically cannot fathom challenging authority or straying from their social programming.

This isn’t a political failure. We don’t need a change of government - that won’t solve anything at all.

We need to fundamentally change the way children are raised so that they become self-actualizing adults and not conformist automatons. Everything else is political theater meant to distract us from the fundamental problem. The solution is inter-generational and will take decades. There is no other way to achieve lasting liberty. As long as a large majority of the population want government because they fear freedom and responsibility, we will continue to get government no matter what political “safeguards” are put in place.

No constitution can protect us from this inevitability.

And this goes beyond politics. In one study, the vast majority of managers and executives, 85%, were in stage 3 or lower - above even the average across the population.

You know that manager who wants to delegate but can’t help micromanage everyone because they don’t want to make themselves disposable? I’ve had my share of those.

The Inevitable Failure of Democracy

If you read about democracy in a textbook you’ll get the idealized version: people get a choice. They can research the topics, reason about issues, and vote for who will most likely achieve the promised goals (never mind that politicians have no moral right to do anything whatsoever).

Yet according to Kegan’s research, two thirds of the population aren’t even psychologically capable of doing this - and the third that is are probably the third that doesn’t vote because they know it’s pointless.

In reality, adults stuck in stage 3 or below blindly follow whatever group they’re in. Whenever their group’s position changes, their views change, and they don’t even notice. That’s how you’ll find liberals defending a war that they would have opposed 3 years ago. The hypocrisy is endemic.

This is why the culture war ends up dictating politics, and not reasoned arguments, every time.

In part 3 we’ll cover how childhood manufactures compliance. And why you want your kids to be defiant. As parents all too often we want our kids to just obey us, and then we’re surprised when they go along with the group and government edicts. What did you think would happen if you spent years dictating compliance to authority as a virtue?

Sources:

- Kegan, R. (1994). In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Harvard University Press.

- Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self. Harvard University Press.

- Kegan, R. & Lahey, L.L. (2009). Immunity to Change. Harvard Business Press.

- Rooke, D. & Torbert, W. (2005). “Seven Transformations of Leadership.” Harvard Business Review.

- Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart.

- DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1983). “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism.” American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.

- Piaget, J. (1972). “Intellectual Evolution from Adolescence to Adulthood.” Human Development, 15, 1-12.

- Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). “Self-determination theory.” American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

A lot of pro-liberty folks have a core assumption in their arguments and worldview - that people want to be free. That if you just show them their chains, they’ll want to shrug them off. That if you lead by example, and show them the tyranny, they’ll go buy land and want to be off-the-grid too. But it’s simply not true.

What’s stopping mass adoption of liberty isn’t lack of knowledge or means, it’s the unwillingness of most people to be free.

Give them the option, and they’ll hand the keys right back. They’ll vote for the next authority figure promising to make their decisions for them, join the next movement that tells them what to think, and feel genuinely relieved when someone else takes the wheel.

This isn’t a political mystery. It’s a psychological one. And several decades of research across completely unrelated fields keep landing on the same uncomfortable answer.

The 1%: Born to Rule

Robert Hare spent his career studying psychopathy. His Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is the gold standard diagnostic tool: 20 items, scored 0-40, with a score of 30 or higher marking the clinical threshold for psychopathy.

In his 1999 book Without Conscience, Hare estimated that roughly 1% of the general population meets this strict clinical threshold. Broader measures, which flag milder cases the clinical interview would exclude, put the number higher, around 4 to 5%.

The thing is - that 1% doesn’t distribute evenly.

A 2010 study by Babiak, Neumann, and Hare examined 203 corporate professionals who had been selected by their companies for management development programs. These weren’t random employees. These were the ones identified as leadership material. The results: 3.9% scored 30 or higher on the PCL-R - the same strict checklist behind that 1% figure - roughly four times the general population rate. Almost one in twenty-five of the corporate world’s chosen leaders met the strict clinical threshold for psychopathy.

The kicker: psychopathy was positively associated with ratings of charisma and presentation style. The psychopaths weren’t getting flagged as problems. They were getting promoted. The system selected for them.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s watched how power works. Positions of authority are attractive to people who want to control others. Psychopaths are drawn to those positions the way moths are drawn to light. And the traits that make them dangerous (charm, fearlessness, willingness to manipulate) are the same traits that make them look like “leaders” to the people doing the hiring and the voting.

The 80%: Escape from Freedom

If the 1% are the predators, the vast majority are the willing prey. Not because they’re stupid. Because freedom is genuinely terrifying when you lack the psychological infrastructure to handle it.

Erich Fromm figured this out in 1941. A German Jewish psychoanalyst who had watched Hitler’s rise firsthand, Fromm published Escape from Freedom asking a question that haunted him: why did millions of people voluntarily embrace a totalitarian regime? His answer wasn’t propaganda, or economic despair, or national humiliation, though those played roles. His answer was that freedom itself produces anxiety, and most people will do anything to escape that anxiety, including handing their autonomy to a dictator.

Fromm drew a sharp distinction between “freedom from” (liberation from external control) and “freedom to” (the creative capacity to direct your own life). You can have the first without the second. And when you do, the result isn’t liberation. It’s vertigo. You’ve been freed from the old authority, but you have no internal compass to replace it. The ground drops out.

(This is why so many people who become atheists immediately turn around and cling to the state as their god.)

Faced with that vertigo, Fromm identified three escape mechanisms:

Authoritarianism: Surrendering to a new authority. Submit to a leader, a party, a movement, a doctrine. The authoritarian personality contains both masochism (desire to submit) and sadism (desire to control those below you in the new hierarchy). It’s not just obedience. It’s relief.

Destructiveness: What you can’t control, destroy. If the world’s complexity is overwhelming, burn it down. This is the Antifa crowd.

Automaton conformity: The most insidious escape, and the most relevant today. People unconsciously adopt the beliefs, preferences, and behaviors that society expects, and then experience them as their own genuine choices. Fromm’s words from 1941 read like a prophecy for the social media age: “We have become automatons who live under the illusion of being self-willing individuals.”

That third mechanism is the one to sit with. The automaton conformist doesn’t know they’ve surrendered their autonomy. They think they’re thinking for themselves. They genuinely believe their opinions are their own. They just happen to be identical to whatever their social group, media ecosystem, or institutional affiliation demands.

Kegan’s Numbers

Robert Kegan, a Harvard developmental psychologist, spent decades studying how adults actually think. Not what they know, but the structure through which they process reality.

His Constructive Developmental Theory identifies five stages of psychological complexity. The first applies almost exclusively to children. The next four are where most adults live. But in essence, the earlier stages, when manifested in adults, are a sign of arrested development. An adult who didn’t develop past a certain age of intellectual maturity.

Stage 1 (the Impulsive Mind): is an early-childhood stage - roughly ages 2–4, governed by momentary impulses and perceptions with no stable self. Virtually all adults have matured beyond this phase.

Stage 2 (the Imperial Mind): Purely self-interested. Relationships are transactional. Follows rules to avoid punishment. This stage is about what you’d expect a 3-5 year-old to be. By the age of 5-6, children who are developing normally become capable of empathy and start to care about the needs of others (stage 3). That is, unless you abuse them (via spanking or in other ways). About 6% of adults never develop past this stage.

Stage 3 (the Socialized Mind): Identity comes from external sources: relationships, institutions, culture. Gets beliefs, morals, and sense of “truth” from the surrounding environment. Cannot independently answer “What do I want?” because “I” is defined by the group. This is where most adults live, about 58%.

Stage 4 (the Self-Authoring Mind): Has developed an internal compass. Can evaluate the expectations of others against a self-constructed framework. Generates their own understanding of the world. Doesn’t need external validation to know what they think. About 35% of adults get to this stage.

Stage 5 (the Self-Transforming Mind): Can hold multiple frameworks simultaneously and examine them from outside, including their own. About 1% of adults.

In his study of 342 adults, published in In Over Our Heads (Harvard University Press, 1994), Kegan found that roughly two thirds of adults operate at Stage 3 or below. Only about 35% have reached Stage 4. William Torbert independently studied 497 managers and executives using different methods and reached nearly identical conclusions.

In other words, more than half of the adult population has not developed the capacity for psychological self-authorship. Their identity, their beliefs, their values, their sense of what’s true is constituted by external structures: their employer, their party, their church, their peer group, their media diet.

When you give these people “freedom,” you’re not giving them something they want. You’re taking away the scaffolding that tells them who they are.

The 15-20%: The Ones Who Actually Want Freedom

So who does want freedom? Not as an abstract value they’ll nod along with, but as an operating principle they’ll actually live by?

Kegan’s data puts the Self-Authoring population at ~35%, but that includes people in transition between stages and those who demonstrate Stage 4 capacity only in limited domains. The consistently, robustly self-authoring population is smaller. Torbert’s parallel research, published as “Seven Transformations of Leadership” in Harvard Business Review, found that only 15% of leaders operate from post-conventional stages (what he called Individualist, Strategist, and Alchemist).

Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs points to the same neighborhood. He estimated that fewer than 2% of people fully achieve self-actualization, though he believed a much larger percentage had the capacity.

Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory, built on decades of experimental research at the University of Rochester, identified autonomy as one of three basic psychological needs (alongside competence and relatedness). Their central finding: human beings can be “proactive and engaged or, alternatively, passive and alienated, largely as a function of the social conditions in which they develop and function.” When autonomy is supported, people thrive. When it’s suppressed, they become dependent, apathetic, and compliant.

But here’s the uncomfortable part of Deci and Ryan’s work: extrinsic rewards for behavior that is intrinsically motivated actually undermine the intrinsic motivation. Pay someone to do what they’d do freely, and they stop wanting to do it. This means most institutional structures (schools, corporations, governments) are actively manufacturing compliance by replacing internal motivation with external rewards and punishments. The system doesn’t just fail to develop autonomy. It actively destroys it, one child at a time.

The Milgram Pattern

Now watch what happens when you line these numbers up against completely different research domains.

Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments at Yale in 1963: participants were told by an authority figure in a lab coat to administer what they believed were dangerous electric shocks to another person. 65% complied all the way to the maximum voltage, which killed the other (pretend) person. They heard screaming. They were visibly distressed. They kept flipping the switch because a man in a coat told them to. 35% defied the authority and stopped.

Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments in 1951: participants were asked to match line lengths, a task with an obvious correct answer. Actors in the room gave obviously wrong answers. 75% of participants conformed to the group’s wrong answer at least once. But 25% never conformed, not even once, across all twelve critical trials.

Now look at the American Revolution. Historian Robert Calhoon’s research found that only 40-45% of the free colonial population actively supported the Patriots, at best “no more than a bare majority.” Paul H. Smith’s 1968 study in the William and Mary Quarterly calculated that Loyalists comprised about 19.8% of free citizens. The rest were neutral or uninvolved. Out of a colonial population of 2.5 million, just over 100,000 served in the Continental Army.

The same ratios keep appearing:

1-4% who seek to control: psychopaths (Hare), corporate psychopaths (Babiak), Kegan’s Stage 5 + Stage 2 combined.

55-80% who conform, obey, or remain passive: Milgram’s obedient 65%, Asch’s conformists, Kegan’s Stage 3, the colonial population who stayed out of the Revolution or supported the monarchy.

15-35% who resist, think independently, or act autonomously: Milgram’s defiant 35%, Asch’s 25% who never conformed, Kegan’s Stage 4 and 5, Torbert’s 15% post-conventional leaders, the active Patriots.

These researchers weren’t coordinating. They were studying different phenomena in different decades using different methods. And they kept finding the same distribution.

What This Means

This isn’t a comfortable framework. It suggests that the liberty movement is not losing an argument. It’s dealing with a species-level distribution of psychological orientation. The majority of the population does not want freedom, not because they’ve been tricked or haven’t heard the right arguments, but because freedom requires a psychological capacity that most adults haven’t developed.

The 1% who seek control and the 80% who seek someone to follow are engaged in a transaction that works for both parties. The psychopaths get power. The socialized majority gets someone to tell them who they are and what to think. Both sides are getting exactly what they want.

The 15-20% who actually want autonomy aren’t losing the debate. They’re outnumbered by people who are playing a completely different game.

This doesn’t mean the percentages are fixed, or that people can’t develop. They can. That’s the subject of the rest of this series. But it starts with seeing the landscape clearly, without the comforting illusion that everyone secretly wants to be free and just needs the right pamphlet.

They don’t. And pretending otherwise is why most liberty activism goes nowhere.

Next in the series: “Children in Adult Bodies,” a deep dive into Kegan’s developmental theory: why most adults never reach psychological autonomy, what keeps them stuck, and what it means for governance.

Sources

- Hare, R.D. (1999). Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. Guilford Press.

- Babiak, P., Neumann, C.S., & Hare, R.D. (2010). “Corporate Psychopathy: Talking the Walk.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28: 174-193.

- Sanz-García, A. et al. (2021). “Prevalence of Psychopathy in the General Adult Population.” Frontiers in Psychology.

- Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart.

- Kegan, R. (1994). In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Harvard University Press.

- Kegan, R. & Lahey, L.L. (2009). Immunity to Change. Harvard Business Press.

- Rooke, D. & Torbert, W. (2005). “Seven Transformations of Leadership.” Harvard Business Review.

- Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.” American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

- Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row.

- Milgram, S. (1963). “Behavioral Study of Obedience.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.

- Asch, S.E. (1951). “Effects of Group Pressure.” Groups, Leadership, and Men.

- Smith, P.H. (1968). “The American Loyalists.” William and Mary Quarterly, 25.

- Calhoon, R. (various). Works on Loyalist/Patriot strength. Cited in Journal of the American Revolution.