Penn State undergraduate Hannah Marchok interviews professor Pete Hatemi about his pioneering, interdisciplinary research investigations into the role narcissism plays in contemporary American politics.
Hannah Marchok
Undergraduate Biobehavioral Health student at Penn State with a minor in Global Health.
Pete Hatemi
Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Microbiology and Biochemistry at Penn State.
Penn State undergraduate Hannah Marchok interviews professor Pete Hatemi about his pioneering, interdisciplinary research investigations into the role narcissism plays in contemporary American politics.
Hannah Marchok
Undergraduate Biobehavioral Health student at Penn State with a minor in Global Health.
Pete Hatemi
Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Microbiology and Biochemistry at Penn State.
Mark Shriver:
From Penn State’s Center for Human Evolution and Diversity, this is Tracking Traits
[MUSIC FADES]
Nina Jablonski:
Hello and welcome to the Tracking Traits podcast. My name is Nina Jablonski and I’m co-director of CHED, the Center for Human Evolution and Diversity at Penn State.
Mark Shriver:
And I’m Mark Shriver, the other co-director of CHED. Welcome to the podcast.
Nina Jablonski:
So Mark, what do you think about our topic for this episode?
Mark Shriver:
You mean “Contemporary Politics and the Evolution of Narcissism?” I’d say that’s a unique and powerful combination of concepts that makes for a really important conversation to have these days.
Nina Jablonski:
When you consider how much narcissism seems to be running rampant in the world of politics right now, I have to agree with you. And the idea of looking at this through an evolutionary lens is certainly an exciting and novel approach.
Mark Shriver:
It’s a very multidisciplinary way to come at it and that’s not surprising when you look at the scientist doing this research. Pete Hatemi is a Distinguished Professor of Political Science who is co-funded in Microbiology and Biochemistry at Penn State. His research focuses on explicating individual differences in preferences, decision-making, and social behaviors on a wide range of topics that includes political behaviors and attitudes, among many others.
Nina Jablonski:
Pete really does bring together a lot of different disciplines in his work. Evolutionary science, genetics, sociology…all of these come into play as he looks at what’s going on within political systems – particularly in the United States.
Mark Shriver:
Yeah, it’s a pretty unique way into that subject matter - and what’s particularly novel about Pete’s approach is that he’s examining not just the narcissism of the politicians themselves, but the way that society in general and voters in particular are being triggered in a context where the overall level of narcissism has been increasingly elevated.
Nina Jablonski:
Social media has definitely played a role in that, as Pete points out in his research. This constant documenting and sharing of ourselves and our lives. We’re living in the age of the selfies.
Mark Shriver:
Also in that sphere we have very savvy politicians and campaign managers preying upon some of our most anti-social tendencies to push their own agendas.
Nina Jablonski:
We do, and that’s just one of many topics that Pete dives into in this conversation with Penn State undergrad Hannah Marchok, who returns to the Tracking Traits podcast again to do the interview.
Mark Shriver:
Hannah’s majoring in Biobehavioral Health with a minor in Global Health here at Penn State. I believe this is the fourth time she’s been the interviewer on our podcast.
Nina Jablonski:
That’s right, Hannah started out with our first season last year and now officially holds the student record for most episodes recorded.
Mark Shriver:
Only you and I have been on more episodes.
Nina Jablonski:
Just you and me, Mark! And I think our listeners have heard enough from us on this episode, so here’s Hannah Marchok talking with Pete Hatemi about “Contemporary Politics and the Evolution of Narcissism.”
[MUSICAL INTERLUDE]
Hannah Marchok:
Pete is a Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Microbiology and Biochemistry at the Pennsylvania State University. He advocates for theoretical and methodological pluralism, including, but not limited to, behavioral experiments and endocrinology, genetics, physiology, neuroscience and social learning approaches. Pete, thank you so much for joining us today.
Pete Hatemi:
Oh, thanks for having me.
Hannah Marchok:
You obviously do a lot of really exciting and interesting things. But as for what your current research focuses on, could you talk to us about that?
Pete Hatemi:
What I'm really interested in is why people differ and how those differences can potentially help or harm a civil society. In particular, I've been doing quite a bit of research on narcissism and how it's being expressed in the mass publics, how it's affecting our elections, our policies, our ability to govern, and the health of the public. And narcissism is kind of an interesting trait, as many personality traits are. But it's really necessary. It's an evolved trait. We all have some level of narcissism.
Pete Hatemi:
You have to have some level of self-promotion and selfishness to even survive. Even if going back to, let's say, you know tribal living in the Pliocene I mean, a Millennia ago, you need some means to have some self-efficacy to believe in yourself. Leaders have to emerge. You have to have some level of exhibitionism, especially if you wanted to find a mate in life. And we do that today, too. Even if people say, "Oh, no, I don't do anything." Well, you certainly do. The clothes that you put on, makeup, perfume, hair, all those things, you have some level of exhibitionism. Even the traits that we might think are negative, like entitlement or exploitative-ness, those narcissistic traits; you need some level of those as well. If you had no level of entitlement, then you would never advocate for yourself and perhaps never get any of the benefits that you need, never succeed, never go to school today, any of those things.
So we all have some level of narcissism. And it certainly allows us to function. But what happens when those levels become elevated? When they get exploited by the systems we have today? Things like Facebook, or politicians really dig and know exactly where to hit people to make them frustrated that they're not getting their due, to make it look like someone else is taking yours, to really bring out the selfishness in the public. And how does that express? And how does that affect all of our lives? There's multiple steps and stages. There's, you know, everything from how it expresses in an election, to individual differences in a genetic sense, to what triggers it.
Hannah Marchok:
That's so interesting. It seems like you really are doing a lot of interdisciplinary work. In a perfect world, what sort of impact would you like your research to have on the general public?
Pete Hatemi:
Well, I think any way that we could reduce over-representation of narcissism in the mass publics and preserve democratic norms and better policy-making. I know it's a stretch. But even the most modest reduction, even the smallest change. One person, that's a difference. If we can identify ways that maybe we could have less narcissistic people engage in the political process and make it less attractive for the most narcissistic elements to come out. It's not necessarily like you're a narcissistic person or not. It's more as if what drives and pulls the narcissism out of everyone?
And if there's something we can do to reduce that, to basically push down that impulse, maybe even constrain politicians, media platforms and others from exploiting maybe some of our natural instincts in a way that not to regulate or control free speech or anything so drastic, but small changes to make exploitation less likely. If it could lead to that, or even letting the public know you're being exploited, sometimes that's all you need to do, is say, "Hey, do you know that this ad is designed to basically draw out your selfishness?" And if you put that in a disclaimer, that alone would signal to people, maybe I should pay a little more attention. So things like that.
Hannah Marchok:
On your field specifically of sort of sociology and political science, what sort of impact do you see your research having in the future or is it already having?
Pete Hatemi:
There was not very many people looking at this, actually none. As researchers, most of the research on narcissism and politics is focused on politicians. And they're certainly amongst the most narcissistic actors in the world. I think politicians, actors, musicians, doctors and then academics were right in that category and high in narcissism. But politicians are far, far away, they're the highest category. And so there's a lot of focus on that. But when looking at the mass publics, it was largely ignored until... It was a handful of scholars, myself and my good colleague, Zoltan Fazekas out of Copenhagen and then a handful of others, maybe six people total, we had five papers come out at the same time around, circa 2016. That's where suddenly that became interesting.
And so now it's brought out this kind of whole new research program. And scores of people have been following up and replicating our studies and extending them. And so it's actually quite nice. It's pretty rare when you're in day one in a research paradigm and to see that others just take off with it. You know, Zoli and I laughed the other day. When we first put out our papers there was some curiosity. “Why are you looking at this?” And the journals weren't sure. And now, I've had 10 manuscripts to review on the same topics. And so it's quite flattering, but also now I feel like I'm in a rush and I need to catch up with my own research.
Hannah Marchok:
Yeah. That's understandable. But, I guess, it's probably very cool for you to see how your work has inspired people. So Pete, do you see any evolutionary precursors in our non-human relatives to why we should have these narcissistic traits?
Pete Hatemi:
Yeah. This is really a Richard Wrangham and Brosnan and de Waal type of question, who've studied this extensively. If you think about the basics of ancient humans, primates, animals, we all have really the same evolutionary drive. Survival in order to have offspring and pass on our genes, right? And that's very simply put in the most basic sense. Now, if you think about, let's say, chimpanzees, our closest relatives, their display behaviors, think about the displays of aggression and dominance in order to control their troop. Think about when just the coalitionary war that chimpanzees engage in. They rally their people. The males move forward. They cross over very treacherous, difficult terrain. They put their own lives at risk. Attack and engage in dominance and raiding behavior and then return home in celebration.
And part of that, it was very similar to these jungle narcissistic traits that we see expressed in humans today, certainly with exhibitionism, certainly with a type of dominance and control and superiority, certainly with those core impressions. And if you think even beyond raiding parties to just within the troop, is the behavior that is needed to find a mate, to show superior ity, to show physical prowess, to show any of those behaviors in which, at the most extremes, that humans show in a much more subtle way today. So certainly, I'm no expert on primates. I would probably just email [Sarah]. And if you were to ask me this question as a student, I'd say, "Let me email, Sarah, and I'll get back to you." She's actually very lovely and will respond to emails. We had been at a conference together, but it's been some time.
But yeah, you know, it's hard for people to say those words like, "Wait, I'm not narcissistic at all," because not all narcissism is bad. That's really important. And I think Keith Campbell had talked about this a great deal, is that we all have these traits. And you have to have them to survive. CEOs need them to lead. Military leaders need to lead. People need them to get their own resources. We have to have some level of exhibitionism to attract others. But it's when it becomes accelerated to the point that it's harmful. And I think that's the degree of difference.
Hannah Marchok:
So could you speak to, on a little bit of a personal level, how has your work affected how you look at a political campaign or at a targeted ad?
Pete Hatemi:
You know, it's a strange thing. I come from a family of patriots, of selfless service. All the folks in my family serve. And not many of us now. There's only a handful left, but. Seeing how the country has changed has been difficult; to actually watch what's going on and all these competing forces that are really manipulating our democracy. To see politicians exhibit such a radical level of narcissism, to have science just not be believed wholescale, that we really have entered a post-truth world, where credible information is given the same weight as non-credible information. And most of the public getting their information from social media, where our news media could care less about the truth in general and more about revenue generation. And where, what was news was the product is now no longer. We're the product. And news is the cost they pay to get us into their product stream. It's been difficult to see.
Even 20, 30 years ago, you'd have, you know, Bob Dole and Robert Seaberg, two complete political opposites, and yet they would find some common ground for policy and speak to one another. And that age is gone. And so on a personal level, to see these changes in our country and witness such a pushback against education, against science, against knowledge, against civil society. "What is going on here? And why is the large public accepting this? Why are we in a space where this is acceptable?"
And so it sort of led me to, you know, “What is it that we're becoming so focused on the self and looking at everyone as an enemy instead of a fellow citizen?” That, we may have different ideas, different needs, different values. But we're all in this together. So yeah, it does have a personal element to me. And perhaps at this stage in my career, I can focus on things of personal interest a little bit more. That's the business side of the academy, of course. And so yeah, there's a personal level here.
Hannah Marchok:
And I believe this is something that you discussed in some of your papers thus far too, which is how narcissistic traits of leaders then lead people to, on one side or the other, feel that they almost have to go with the group and have to feed into their own narcissism that's being supplied by the leaders of that side, leading people to think they're much farther away in ideas than they actually are.
Pete Hatemi:
Yeah. It's quite remarkable how our political orientations have become the number one identity. Post-war, when we talk post World War II, or pre-war, it was things like ethnicity and religion and economic class. Those were big differentiators. Today it's politics. And when someone says something against a policy or candidate, the parties and candidates have done such a terrific job of making politics personal as if it’s an attack upon you. And then, those values are then brought into the person. And this rage occurs and this indifference, even to the point of naming people as their enemy, or evil, or using words that make absolutely no sense and-
Hannah Marchok:
Create division.
Pete Hatemi:
Division. It’s exactly what comes out. Yeah.
Hannah Marchok:
Given this past few minutes of discussion, it's obvious that your work can create some opinions on both sides. So from those involved in the world of politics, I would love to know what kind of feedback you have received. So that can include news people or actual politicians.
Pete Hatemi:
Yeah. I've been interviewed by several news channels, things like The Economist and the Times and others. And it depends who it is. Usually, the more partisan media, they want to focus on the thing that dings the other side. But what's fascinating about narcissism, it's that it's across the board. It's expressed in liberals and conservatives and Democrats and Republicans. Now, it's expressed slightly differently. But it's equally expressed. And you know, I believe it was when I was on the radio in Chicago, the host asked me about, "Well, walk me through the Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton." And I said, "Oh, they're really two wonderful cases of the different types of narcissism." You have Trump as your classic, vulnerable narcissist, desperate for the approval of others. Rage when he doesn't get it. Seeking affiliation with people of high status then hating them later. It's the really classic, vulnerable narcissist.
Where really, Clinton is more the grandiose narcissist. She doesn't need anyone else's view of herself as great. She already knows she's great. And they really exhibit these two forms. Now, that doesn't align along the Left and Right, at all. That's just those two individuals. But across the whole public, we all have these narcissistic traits, that are equally drawn out by political leaders on the left and right. They do manifest slightly differently. And you can see that lining up with, let's say, exploitation and xenophobic traits on the Right, demand for resources and status on the Left. And yet that's matches those party platforms to some degree. Yeah, you know I’ve had everything from excitement to frustration. I've had quite an interesting relationship with the public sphere. I've been blasted by the Left and the Right, which is, I think, I enjoy that in a sense. Its puts me (laughing) right where I should be, yeah.
Hannah Marchok:
Equality, I guess. Right. And so, not that this is what your research is exactly focused on. But as someone who is looking at this day in and day out, aside from the hopes that you could possibly have, disclaimers included in political ads, things of that nature, how could everyday citizens, who are listening to this podcast right now, what's your advice for how you can protect yourself, but also try to find the truth and identify within yourself when your narcissistic traits are being activated by what people are saying?
Pete Hatemi:
Yeah. Don't take things too seriously. And take serious things, seriously. You know, it's like the idea of the mud-slinging, laugh that off. And it's like, "It's the end of the world!" Like, "Okay, yeah." It's so easy to get sucked in when you click on something and you see this and you read a headline. Don't read the headlines. Just walk past the headline if you're going to read the piece. Recognize that all sources of information, their primary goal is to suck you in. That's the goal. And so take all this rhetoric with a grain of salt. Laugh off the things that are laugh-off-able. But take seriously things that are serious.
It's fascinating when the portrayal of, let's say, the insurrection or COVID, it's just an amazing discussion. COVID's a great one, where you have one side thinks if you step out your door, there's an invisible virus that's going to kill you on the spot. And therefore, we need a protective suit, this, that, and the other. “Can't talk to anybody. Can't see anybody. Stay in your bubble.” Another side is, “there's nothing happening here. There's not a single problem. There's no virus. It's a government conspiracy to put microchips in your body.” And both of those are just absurd and ridiculous. Yet, a non-trivial, actually, a very large amount of the public sits in those camps. And I think for the average citizen to say, "Hey, don't dive head first into these things as you would anything else.
Take a moment. Take a breath. Look at it. Take a step back. Distance yourself from the rhetoric.” And that alone, you can have any opinion you want. Where you see your risk really is relevant to the person. But it can be, you know, maybe you want to wear a mask. Maybe you don't. But there's a fine line between the two, versus “there's nothing happening here, versus you're all going to die.” And I think that's where, those are the polls you want to avoid. Come more towards making a reasoned choice.
Students asked me, how do they avoid getting frustrated and brought in?
I was like, "Always take a step back from the information that you see. Look at it as just the 10,000 foot view. Take a deep breath. And say, 'Am I really this angry, this frustrated? Do I really think I should be kicking and screaming and knocking down the door? Or do I just have a different opinion?'" And yeah, I know it's not a fantastic answer, but common sense seems to be common sense. Yeah.
Hannah Marchok:
It's almost like it's difficult to listen to, this common sense, when feeding into the narcissism and being able to go with your group seems so attractive.
[MUSICAL INTERLUDE]
Hannah Marchok:
I want to talk to you a bit about what you had discussed in terms of how our political identity has almost become our main identifier these days. Whereas, following World War II, it was things such as your class, or your religion, socioeconomic status. So do you think that there has been an evolution of the trait of narcissism? Or do you think there's been an evolution in how skilled people are at exploiting it?
Pete Hatemi:
Yeah. I think the latter. It's a necessary human trait. But just think of how radically our society has changed, where we came from much smaller groups, where there was personal interaction. And that's really what we've evolved through. And then now, of course, it's only been a short period of time where we have electronic communication. In the past, we managed informational relationship for maybe a couple dozen people. Maybe a max would be a hundred. Now, we're managing relationships in the thousands. We have inputs in every second, pieces of information 24/7. Now, our brains evolved over time to take in a phenomenal amount of information. And we are now being hijacked in such a manner that all these emotional cues, that wouldn't happen in everyday conversation.
The rage, the inflammatory comments, the eliciting anger, a politician, a single person can now hijack hundreds of millions of people in a single moment, single speech. That spread and continuousness, just constant flow of information, the rage machines that keep going, attached to the hyper-algorithms from Google and Facebook that funnel you in to your research programs. It really creates and brings out the worst in us. I think one of the funniest experiments was a few years ago, Microsoft rolled out Cortana, their AI. And within 24 hours, she was a w hite supremacist, Nazi, conspiracy theorist. And they had to shut her down, because in part, she was interacting with social media. And it starts to funnel you in these spaces. And she was a wonderful example of how a person can be easily funneled. And that was just an AI, of course.
But think about just your every day, how you've been manipulated. You go on to, let's say, Google, because you love Google. Google's great. It has Gmail. Links all your things together. Fills your calendar for you. It's fantastic. Well, every, now, ad on Google is using a history, your IP address, your search address, communication patterns, and so forth. And they are funneling a tailored ad to you. That then tailors you deeper and deeper into a very specific node in which you're siloed into not only where you're getting information from, but what it is. And so your world becomes narrowed into the very specific band.
Especially if you like politics, and you're interested in that topic, now you're constantly being fed this aggravated feed instead of, oh, look at flowers, or roses, or what have you, or any random things. It's completely not random. So yeah, technology has just, in ways, been able to hijack our evolved traits to our detriment. And of course, there's great benefits. But certainly those emotional heuristics, cognitive cues, shortcuts that we used to navigate complex human social interactions are now being manipulated greatly by elites.
Hannah Marchok:
From an ethical perspective, when you're doing your research and when you're considering how to write about these things, can you talk a bit about some of the dilemmas that you may face?
Pete Hatemi:
Yeah. This is always a question, especially for those of us who work in genetics. One of the big ethical questions is, when you find things that can be misinterpreted or used in a way that would be harmful to the public, where do you draw the line? And there are a number of times where I have not published results that I just didn't think would be helpful. Now, this is a very precarious position to put yourself in as a scientist, because you have to be honest in science. And so you can't pick and choose what to publish whole scale. But there are times where you might have some findings that can be really misinterpreted. And you have to be, "Okay, how do we publish this? Or do we not? Do we put this in the notes with a massive amount of caveats in the SI?" And that's usually what we do. I try to be very careful in the main text to not allow a single sentence to be extracted and manipulated.
And that's something new that we hadn't faced as scientists in the last 30, 40 years. But certainly the last 10. I now write in a manner in which I scrub my papers to make sure not a single sentence can be misused. Now, when it comes to main findings, we always report them, no matter what. You cannot pick and choose and say, "I'm only reporting these main findings in the findings." You always report your main findings. And certainly, what your hypothesis tests were. But there are times where there are pieces of information, then say, "Okay, how do we present this?" And think hard when you know that information will or can be used in an nefarious way. It's really frustrating that we live in that space.
I'd say that in particular, there are studies I just won't do. There are things I won't do. I won't go there. There are others who will. I think when you're a scientist and a social scientist, and you also teach these topics, you have to take care that you don't come in a biased approach. You have to take care that you don't bias your students. You have to take care that you're honest in science. And then you have to think about the questions you ask. And I think as we get more and more into specific genotyping with people, you have to think of things. When I say going back to like things that you don't want to publish, do you necessarily want to show the prevalence of risk of certain health traits in certain populations that could harm their ability to get healthcare insurance?
Now, that's changed in the United States, that preexisting conditions have now been wiped out. But ten years ago it wasn't. And so that was something of real concern to researchers. There are other things, too. If you think about how, let's say, dropout rates and education rates and the way that you would portray that and if someone was to attempt to do a study with genes, IQ, dropout rates, and not really understand the social dynamics and the lack of school funding in districts that track explicitly with ethnicities in United States, you could easily publish that piece and it could be radically misused and wrong. And so when going all the way back to things I won't do, it's incomplete data. That's spaces where if I have incomplete data, I'm not going to publish on that, because you could be really harmful. So there are dilemmas.
And I think as a scientist, we're all different. There are some who are purists. And they say, "No matter what, you put it out there. No matter what the sample. No matter the thing. You run the study. You show your model. And be damned with the social consequences." There are others that won't touch anything that could be harmful. And I think, most of us, it's somewhere in the middle where we find a balance. We report our main effects. We're careful in our data. And when we have findings, but maybe a weak sample, and you know it's going to be interpreted a certain way, you hold onto that until you have a proper sample. Or until you can really fully delineate all the caveats and write it in such a manner as that no sentence can be extracted to manipulate the truth. That is the space we live in.
Hannah Marchok:
Do you think that that's just a symptom of the world of constant information and technology that we're in today?
Pete Hatemi:
Well, I think it's the polarized system that we're in, not just the information age. I still have this open fight with the BBC. They did an interview with me. And then three weeks later, the attacks in Benghazi occurred. They took my interview and integrated it with the attacks in Benghazi, even though it had nothing to do with the attacks beforehand. And presented it as if I was commenting on the terrorists that attacked the embassy saying, "Oh, they have a specific genetic proclivity of violence and we're looking for the cure for it." And I wrote to the editor. I said, "This is absolutely bogus. It's not true. You need to rescind this story." And they refused. And it's still up there, online.
So therefore, profit-driven enterprise. And that's the way they like to run their show. And they said they are allowed to do that. And technically, you are. So, yes, I think it's much more about a kind of profit-driven and politicized-driven thing that we run into about why our research is often misconstrued, unfortunately, .
Hannah Marchok:
Something that is coming up for me, I wonder what it's like to be in your class and you, as the teacher, if you've seen any difference in how students today versus students three or four years ago, even, are reacting to or understanding, comprehending your work?
Pete Hatemi:
I think it's always a struggle. As we age, the distance in communication style and knowledge, and even our isms start to grow. Certain jokes don't resonate anymore. So pop culture has certainly shifted. There's also the information that students receive. So in the past, you'd lecture and have discussion and exercises in class. Today, there's so much more competing information. You will, at times, get students, they'll look up a piece of information and it'll come from whatever crazy web source, Wikipedia, what have you.
And they'll say, "Oh, well, Wikipedia says this." And then you have to learn to manage that, because now you've got a non-credible source that is being used as belief in a credible source. And so one of the first things, first weeks I do in class, is talk about credible sources of information about intellectual pieces, media pieces and scholarship. And where we sit in the realm of science is based on hypothesis testing and consistent information, not opinion or ease of use. Because that's one of the things that you have to differentiate between the personal life and the scientific life. And the scientific life is evidence and testing of evidence with credible samples. The personal life, do whatever you will. And so that is something that has changed over the last 10 years and has, I think, made us better teachers, but certainly, has created more challenges.
Hannah Marchok:
Backing up to the general research process, what do you enjoy? What are you frustrated with when you're going about doing your research?
Pete Hatemi:
Well, you always start with the question. And it's always fun to generate these kind of questions. And often they're things that you see in the world or in other parts of science. Or if you're an anthropologist, especially looking across time, something that you might recognize in early humans, and how is it being expressed today? So's there's always some exciting question that comes to mind, right? Why? That's always fun.
And designing the studies can be very fun, you know? I run experiments. Some of them are hilarious. I've run speed dating experiments. I've done social norms violations, bathroom experiments, which are hilarious. So you have to go through a lot of IRB to do that. You name it, we've done it. Some of my favorite parts are either the interviews or the debriefs. I love debriefs, because that's where you tell them everything about the study. And people will laugh. They'll get mad. They'll be, "Wait! What?"
And I really enjoy talking through it, because sometimes it really gets people excited. And they say, "You know what? I want to run an experiment." And that's always really gratifying when your participants later become RAs and then scientists themselves. So yeah, I like to run the studies. I have a great time doing it.
Hannah Marchok:
Yeah. That certainly sounds like fun. And in your experience, what makes a strong research project?
Pete Hatemi:
Well, I'd go back to the question. You have to have a good question, a scientific question. And so there's some questions that are not scientific questions. There's some questions that are philosophical questions. Some questions are normative questions and thought questions. And those are wonderful for discussion and debate and expanding your mind. But you have to really know what a scientific question is, something that you can test. Something that is falsifiable. Something that you have the ability to do as well. There are some questions we'd love to ask and scientifically, theoretically, we could do it, but it's impossible to get them.
20 years ago, trying to attempt to find the specific genotypes for certain behaviors, traits or conditions was near impossible. 10 years ago, we had the science, but you needed the sample sizes and hundreds of thousands, if not more. Today, the samples are there with the millions of people that are genotyped. And we're starting to get some really meaningful loci, very specific genes that we know are being activated or triggered and really neat. So yeah, I think you have to really think deeply about the question.
Hannah Marchok:
So can you talk to us about how you got interested in science and in your field, specifically?
Pete Hatemi:
Yeah. There's two people that made a difference in my life there. Lindon Eaves, my advisor, he passed away only a couple weeks ago. And devastating loss for us. And his first student, also my advisor, Nick Martin. Those were my two advisors. And I was injured. I was staying with my brother. And my brother, John, says, "Pete, you really should do something different. You've always been intellectual. Why don't you go into the university here," he was in law school at the time, "and just talk to those folks?" And so I walked in. And I talked to Kevin Smith, who was the Director of Graduate Studies at the time at the University of Nebraska. My brother was in law school. Kevin said, "Yeah, you should come study here." And then during my program, I learned pretty quickly that political science had all these interesting questions, but their tools had nothing to do with biological anthropology, genetics, physiology, and that's where humans reside.
And so I reached out to all the senior scholars in the world. And the one person who responded, meaningfully, was Nick Martin. And Nick says to me, he says, "Mate, you sound like you have some interesting ideas. My advisor, Lindon, started working on politics and genetics in the '70s. Why don't you come out here to Australia, to my lab, and come work with me?" So I came out to Nick. He took me on as one of his own students. Integrated me into his lab. Taught me everything I know. And then sent me to his advisor, Lindon, at the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics. And between those two, they really taught me about evolution, biology, science, genetics, methodology. Everything from structural equation modeling to biometric genetic theory. They really spurred my great interest in the hard sciences, that side.
I took that back to the disciplines in the social sciences and politics and psychology and have just been just driving forward since. And it was two weeks ago when I went to Lindon's funeral to see all of his students, all of us there together. The amount of people that we have impacted, our students' students, my former postdocs, and to just see what we've accomplished is really a wonderful thing. And I'm so grateful for the mentors that I had. Really changed my life. The way I think, the way I think scientifically, the way I think personally.
For many of us, we have that story, what our mentors had done for us to open these doors. And so yes, I had personal interest. I had some pushing along the way from my brother. I had some encouragement from Kevin. I had the mentorship, love and guidance from Eaves and Nick Martin. And that's what made the difference.
Hannah Marchok:
That's awesome. Yeah. Good advisors and good mentorship can really change the whole course of your career. In terms of what's next for you in your research, could you speak to that a bit as well as what you see in the future of the political science research community at large?
Pete Hatemi:
Well, the first I can talk to. The second's an interesting one, because I'm in the middle of the field. So for me, I typically begin on one end or the other. I may begin with the genetics and end with the social behaviors. In this particular research program, I went to the phenotype, the social behaviors, narcissism, how it's expressed, understanding the measures, national representative samples in the public. And turns out we were the first to do a nationally representative sample of the narcissistic personality inventory, even though it had been around since the '70s.
So we start at that end. Now I'm bringing it to the biology end. I want to get into the mechanics of it, what the distribution, the population looks like from a genetic level. How much of the variance do we think is added, genetic or environment? What physiological mechanisms might occur when it's expressed? How do people change? What hormonal systems are triggered? And how that changes the way we think and feel? And how lasting is that? So that's the space I'm kind of excited about. It's a 5, 10-year program. It takes time to fund and collect these studies and work through them. So not short term at all. We'll drive on with our experiments, learning more about the social trait. But next steps are really getting into the physiology, the genetics, the biology of narcissism expressed in the public.
Hannah Marchok:
Well, thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us today, and I definitely will be looking forward to seeing what works you put out in the future.
Pete Hatemi:
Thanks so much. Thanks for having me.
[MUSICAL INTERLUDE]
Mark Shriver:
Tracking Traits is a production of Penn State’s Center for Human Evolution and Diversity. Our producer, audio engineer and musical theme composer is Cole Hons, and our logo was designed by Michael Tribone of mtribone design.
If you enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe through your favorite app, and help us reach more people by sharing it with others and rating us on Apple podcasts.
You can also follow us on social media and learn more about CHED and all of our interviewers and guests at our website, ched – that’s C H E D, dot L A dot P S U dot E D U.