Elevate Your Mind.
Through the Master Mind Newsletter, delivered every other Tuesday, we unleash your full potential and upgrade decision-making. We’ll explore mental models and life design.
Unmasking Tyranny: The Mental Models Fueling History’s Most Notorious Dictators
By Juan Carlos
In the annals of history, the names of certain leaders evoke a sense of dread that transcends generations. They have left a grim mark on humanity’s collective memory, not merely for their thirst for power but for the ruthless ways they wielded it. These leaders – Adolf Hitler, Jozef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and many more – ruled with an iron fist.
Each individual represents a unique manifestation of power, authority, and control. They share a common thread, each employing and guided by mental models. These assumptions shape our understanding of the world and influence our actions. Let’s delve into these leaders’ minds, shedding light on the mental constructs that fueled their tyranny.
Yakubu Gowon (1.1M deaths)
Yakubu Gowon is a figure whose military prowess earned him a formidable reputation and, subsequently, the leadership of Nigeria. It’s intriguing how the mind can play tricks on us and lead us to believe that someone who excels in one domain will naturally do so in others. This cognitive misstep is referred to as the Halo Effect. In the case of Gowon, his military feats may have cast a glowing halo that shadowed his political and leadership inadequacies, allowing him to maintain a firm grasp on power and enforce damaging policies. Such is the danger when charisma and singular talent eclipse the need for broad-based competence in leadership.
But it wasn’t just cognitive bias that characterized Gowon’s reign; economic missteps also played a part. When Nigeria was flush with oil wealth, an opportunity presented itself for the collective good of the nation. Instead, resources were mismanaged, corruption ballooned, and what should have been a communal boon turned into a lamentable instance of the “Tragedy of the Commons.” Each individual, eager to benefit most from this abundant resource, began to exploit it to the detriment of all. This misuse left societal scars that remain visible in Nigeria to this day.
When assessing Gowon’s policy decisions, particularly the Indigenization Decree of 1972, it’s worth considering the concept of Cost-Benefit Analysis. This decision-making process involves weighing the costs and benefits of a specific action. By nationalizing foreign businesses, Gowon’s government might have believed they were tipping the scales towards a net benefit for Nigeria — stimulating the domestic economy and increasing local ownership. This was a high-stakes gambit, ultimately criticized for creating a new bourgeois.
Mengistu Haile Mariam (400K–1.5M deaths)
A new figure, Mengistu Haile Mariam, stepped into the spotlight of Ethiopia’s political landscape in the wake of Emperor Haile Selassie’s fall. In a masterstroke of ‘Seizing the Middle,’ Mengistu nestled himself at the core of the ruling Derg, the military junta. A chess game ensued with Mengistu at the helm, clearing the board of rivals and securing the loyalty of pivotal military factions. With this central command, he shaped the nation’s political trajectory, and in his wake, a legacy of radical, often savage, policies unfolded.
Yet, Mengistu’s understanding of Ethiopia was largely abstract, rooted in ideology rather than reality. He looked at the nation through the lens of Marxist-Leninist principles, a classic case of ‘The Map is Not the Territory.’ The ‘map’ he drew reflected his theoretical understanding and bore little resemblance to the ‘territory,’ the actual socio-political and economic complexities unique to Ethiopia. This disconnect was a signature of his regime, where his ideology clashed against the realities of the people.
In addition, Mengistu had an uncanny skill for simplifying complex scenarios into binaries. This technique is called ‘False Dilemma,’ reducing the spectrum of options to just two, usually in an ‘either/or’ format. As he presented, the narrative posed a simple choice — stand by his stringent regime or embrace chaos and counterrevolution. While strategically beneficial for his hold on power, this framing stifled the exploration of alternative solutions, restricting the nation’s growth and development.
Kim Il Sung (1.6M deaths)
In the heart of North Korea, a man once reigned with an iron fist and a sharp mind: Kim Il Sung. His rule was a masterclass in manipulation, a grand scheme that, in its audacity and breadth, challenged the norms of leadership.
He employed the Base-Superstructure Model, which posits that a society’s economic base critically influences its superstructure, comprising politics, culture, and ideologies. Kim Il Sung’s political philosophy, Juche or self-reliance, can be viewed as applying this model. He aspired to solidify North Korea’s economic base, an autonomous entity detached from external influence, intending that the superstructure would align with his vision of a self-reliant socialist North Korea. Brutal purges and ubiquitous prison camps indicated the lengths he was prepared to go to consolidate this base.
Simultaneously, Kim Il Sung established a pervasive Cult of Personality, a tactic often used by autocratic leaders. He was portrayed as an almost god-like figure in North Korean propaganda, his life story embellished to highlight his heroic and extraordinary qualities. This was not just a flattering image but an absolute narrative, positioning him as a figure of worship.
Kim Il Sung relied heavily on the psychological phenomenon of Confirmation Bias to ensure this narrative’s endurance. He exploited this tendency by controlling information for his citizens. History textbooks were rewritten to present him as the savior of Korea from the Japanese occupation.
Pol Pot (1.7M deaths)
Pol Pot, the notorious leader of the Khmer Rouge, imprinted a chilling chapter into Cambodia’s history. His reign, although short-lived, transformed the once vibrant nation into a landscape of horror and despair, wiping out nearly a fifth of the population. It was as if Pol Pot was engaged in a constant Zero-Sum Game, a scenario where any gain for one group inevitably spelled a loss for another. Under his rule, Cambodia became a dreadful chessboard, where capturing a piece meant the extermination of entire communities he viewed as threats.
The intellectuals, the city dwellers, and anyone who didn’t fit into Pol Pot’s vision of an agrarian utopia were mercilessly cast as the opposition. This ‘us versus them’ dichotomy perpetuated by Pol Pot turned neighbors into enemies and peaceful citizens into silent spectators of his brutality.
This paranoia, however, did not stop within the terrified citizens. It percolated into the inner workings of the Khmer Rouge, leading to an environment riddled with Groupthink. The fear of standing out, of voicing a contrary opinion, paralyzed the faculties of critical thinking. As a result, even as Pol Pot’s policies wreaked havoc, led to mass starvation, and turned the country into a vast labor camp, dissenting voices were silenced under the weight of fear and conformity.
And then, there was the process of Dehumanization. Pol Pot didn’t just wage war against those he deemed unfit for his grand plan; he stripped them of their humanity. In his gruesome narrative, the ‘enemies of the state’ weren’t fellow Cambodians but threats that needed to be eliminated. Portraying them as less than human, he unleashed a reign of terror that left a trail of mass graves, a grim reminder of the cost of dehumanization.
Ismail Enver Pasha (2.5M deaths)
Ismail Enver Pasha, the infamous Turkish military officer and leader, ruled the Ottoman Empire. His reign was a grisly chronicle that spanned the Balkan Wars and World War I.
Ethical Relativism, the idea that morality shifts based on cultural and individual perspectives, underpin his outlook. Enver Pasha didn’t measure his actions by a universal ethical yardstick, bending his standards to his political will. The atrocities he perpetrated against the Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians were necessary sacrifices on the altar of the Ottoman Empire.
Once he embarked on this path, he fell prey to an Escalation of Commitment. This potent psychological force sees individuals doubling down on decisions, even when they lead to adverse outcomes. The humanitarian crisis and international outrage sparked by his campaigns didn’t deter him.
And finally, Scapegoating. A cognitive bias that allowed him to shift blame onto innocent parties, absolving himself of any responsibility. Following the Battle of Sarikamish, a crushing defeat that wounded his military ego, Enver Pasha sought a target for his rage and humiliation. The Armenians, trapped in his political crosshairs, bore the brunt of his anger. This unfounded blame led to the Armenian Genocide, a horrific event that etched the word “genocide” into the global consciousness.
Hideki Tojo (5M deaths)
A veritable tower of authority, Hideki Tojo, General of the Imperial Japanese Army, amassed vast power as a prominent military leader during most of World War II and his tenure as Prime Minister.
Authority Bias was the unseen hand guiding his rule, a psychological tether that bound those beneath him to follow his commands without demur. This deference to his authority was evident in how his militaristic agenda advanced unhindered, his decisions rippling through the ranks with unchallenged acceptance.
While wielding the scepter of power with one hand, Tojo nurtured an In-group Bias with the other. He encouraged aggressive nationalism, painting a clear dichotomy between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ His focus was insular, heavily biased towards the ‘pure-blood’ Japanese families. This favoritism extended beyond domestic policy, shaping his foreign policy marked by a brutal war against nations he considered threats to Japan’s interests.
Early victories during World War II led Tojo down the treacherous path of The Law of Small Numbers. Initial successes, such as the invasion of Malaya and the audacious attack on Pearl Harbor, had bolstered his belief in Japan’s invincibility. The glittering prospect of early triumphs blurred his vision, causing him to overlook the long-term realities of war. His strategic planning was thus steeped in a limited set of initial successes, providing a faulty foundation for the military campaigns to come.
Leopold II of Belgium (2-15M deaths)
Leopold II of Belgium, the monarch with a dream larger than his kingdom, constructed a vast personal empire stained by the blood of millions.
Leopold’s ardent belief in colonialism and a false notion of racial superiority was a potent form of Belief Bias. This warped worldview allowed him to justify his unrelenting ambition and the atrocities committed under his rule. Like an architect sketching a blueprint, he outlined a mission to ‘civilize’ the Congo, ignoring the inherent dignity of its people and casting a blind eye to their suffering.
Simultaneously, the unbearable reality of the Congolese people, crushed under horrific conditions, was explained away by Leopold as a result of their inherent ‘inferior’ characteristics, not the brutal exploitation they were subjected to. In the heart of this insidious reasoning lay Cognitive Dissonance — a psychological mechanism that allowed him to maintain his self-concept as a civilizer while carrying out actions that caused unparalleled devastation. This disharmony between his beliefs and actions, instead of leading to a change of heart, only made his destructive rule more entrenched, as he found twisted justifications for his every move.
Yet, for all the grandeur of Leopold’s colonial dreams, the Law of Triviality allowed his nefarious deeds to persist unchecked. Often referred to as ‘bike-shedding,’ this principle posits that people invest disproportionate attention in trivial matters while overlooking weighty issues. As Leopold held the reins of his fiefdom, the international community squabbled over the niceties of treaties and agreements. Their gaze was turned away from the gruesome tableau unfolding in the heart of Africa, a cruel spectacle of human rights abuses carried out in the name of progress.
Adolf Hitler (17M deaths)
Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi Party, navigated his way to absolute power in Germany from 1934 to 1945 in one of history’s darkest chapters.
The Narrative Fallacy became Hitler’s cornerstone in constructing an emotional appeal that resonated with many Germans. This post hoc fabrication, known as the ‘stab-in-the-back’ myth, blamed Germany’s World War I loss on an internal betrayal by Jews and Communists. This deception transformed a complex web of historical events into a simple, digestible narrative that conveniently pointed fingers away from the real culprits and towards his scapegoats.
On the back of this manipulated narrative, the Bandwagon Effect became a phenomenon where people conform to a majority view regardless of their beliefs. As Hitler’s message gained traction, more Germans felt pressured to embrace his destructive ideology. The momentum was like a snowball rolling down a hill, growing larger and faster with each passing moment. The fear of reprisal or social ostracization further amplified this effect, pushing those who might resist onto the Nazi bandwagon.
However, the Dunning-Kruger Effect was the third strand in Hitler’s tapestry of control. Despite lacking formal military training, Hitler, trapped by this cognitive bias, vastly overestimated his strategic abilities. Ignoring the advice of experienced generals, he insisted on dictating key military decisions. This hubris led to catastrophic military failures, including the fateful Battle of Stalingrad, showcasing a man so absorbed in his own perceived competence, he was blind to his crippling ineptitude.
When manipulated by a charismatic demagogue, these mental models led a nation to unparalleled destruction, affecting millions of innocent lives and forever altering the course of history.
Jozef Stalin (23M deaths)
Jozef Stalin, who helmed the Soviet Union after Lenin died in 1924, orchestrated a symphony of missteps and atrocities.
Upon assuming power, Stalin quickly embarked on a new economic plan, fixating on base goals like surging industrial output and agricultural productivity — a manifestation of First Principles thinking. This method involves dissecting complex problems into their foundational elements, then reasoning from the ground up. But in his blind pursuit of these targets, Stalin overlooked the devastating human toll of his decisions, triggering a severe famine across the country that particularly ravaged Ukraine, a dark period known as Holodomor.
While the famine raged, Stalin sunk deeper into the Sunk Cost Fallacy during his infamous Great Purge. As casualties and political repercussions piled up, he kept doubling down on this brutal campaign to silence opposition. Influenced by the massive resources already committed, he held onto the belief that these purges were necessary for maintaining control, even as the costs skyrocketed and the returns dwindled.
Throughout these catastrophes, an external Locus of Control framed Stalin’s perception. Rather than acknowledging the failures of his policies, he blamed external forces or enemies. This perspective fueled his paranoia, driving him to conduct even more purges to eliminate the ‘enemies’ he believed were undermining him.
In 1939, Stalin struck a non-aggression pact with the Nazis, only to join the Allies when Germany violated the agreement.
The result of all these actions was a chilling death toll.
In 1939 Stalin agreed to a non-aggression pact with the Nazis. Eventually Germany violated the pact, the Soviet Union joined the allies, and they racked up 23.9 million deaths (the largest death toll in the war).
Mao Zedong (49-78M deaths)
The reign of Mao Zedong, the charismatic founder of the People’s Republic of China, is a chilling reminder of how much mental models, in the wrong hands, can lead to untold suffering.
Mao embodied the concept of Inversion. He turned the conventional wisdom of governance and societal order on its head, arguing that to achieve a revolutionary society, it was necessary to dismantle existing structures violently. This view inverted the traditional belief in the ruling class’s responsibility for the people’s welfare, leading to an era of violence and upheaval as Mao sought to eliminate what he perceived as impediments to progress.
An Information Cascade was another tool Mao leveraged to devastating effect. People tend to make choices based on what others do or what they’re told, and during the ill-fated Great Leap Forward, Mao’s regime controlled the narrative. They propagated their aggressive policies of rapid industrialization and collectivization, which propelled the nation toward famine. The cascade of misinformation led to collective action based on a flawed perception of reality.
Mao’s knack for Abstraction was particularly evident in his ability to distill complex social and political issues into simplified ideological statements. Phrases like “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” resonated with the masses, mobilizing support for Mao’s agendas. But this ability to abstract complex realities into catchy slogans often oversimplified intricate issues, leading to policies that failed to consider the real-world complexities and consequences, contributing to a climate of violence and repression.
Mao’s reign was marked by a catastrophic death toll of 49 to 78 million people. His programs, including the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, have left an indelible scar on Chinese history.
The Center of the Onion
We’ve journeyed through a dark past, examining the mental models that drove ten of the most infamous leaders in history. It is a sad journey but an essential one. As George Santayana famously noted, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
As we confront the specters of these notorious leaders, we begin to perceive the complex mental architecture that undergirded their actions. No singular mental model universally characterizes the dictatorial mind, yet the prevalence of certain fallacies becomes inescapable. Recognizing the cognitive distortions that influenced these leaders allows us to understand how they rose to power, how they maintained their rule, and how they justified their actions.
These ten dictators, powerful and feared in their time, now serve as reminders of the human capacity for evil fueled by distorted thinking. Yet they also stand as powerful warnings, urging us to examine our mental models to ensure that we don’t unconsciously slip into the same cognitive traps. To unmask tyranny, we must first unmask our own biases and misconceptions. By doing so, we equip ourselves with the best defense against the rise of future tyrants — the power of informed, critical thinking.
Fueled by a passion for storytelling and excitement for life design, I find joy in reframing narratives to illuminate paths toward fulfillment. My experience spans high-growth startups, filmmaking, and social impact, culminating in my authorship of “Mind Guide: 49 Mental Models for Effective Decision Making.” Through mentoring and coaching, I guide teams and individuals to discover purpose and cultivate a meaningful life.
I started in film, directing award-winning features such as ‘Know How’ and ‘Second Skin.’ These cinematic endeavors earned me recognition and allowed me to serve as a spokesperson for Adobe. I founded the White Roof Project, a grassroots climate activism campaign that mitigated the urban heat island effect and spurred community-led social change.
I carried my storytelling skills and passion for societal transformation as I transitioned into the startup ecosystem. Initially, I contributed to social impact apps, converting complex issues into accessible solutions. This early experience laid a foundation for my later work, where I led the development of groundbreaking products within high-growth startups. My work has underscored the potential of technology to innovate industries and amplify the quality of human life.