The One Person Problem: Why We Blame Villains and Wait for Heroes Instead of Fixing Systems

Beyond Blame and Savior: Why Systems, Not Individuals, Drive Outcomes

When something goes wrong, we look for the person who caused it. When we want something fixed, we look for the person who can save us. Host Dr. Leslie Poston breaks down why both of those instincts are the same cognitive shortcut, what they protect us from seeing, and how superhero narratives, religious traditions, and political campaigns all reinforce the pattern. She pulls examples from Trump, Obama, Dolly Parton, Mamdani, and corporate scandal culture to show how the same psychology operates across the political spectrum.

00:00 Blame And Hope Pattern
00:56 Fundamental Attribution Error
03:07 Just World And Scapegoats
05:07 Collective Narcissism Politics
07:29 Corporate Scandal Rituals
07:54 Villains Versus Saviors
08:31 Compensatory Control Theory
09:42 How Groups Create Leaders
11:07 Obama And Dolly Totems
13:15 Superhero Myth Training
16:38 Religion And Strongmen
20:08 Why Systems Thinking Hurts
23:10 Practical System Questions
24:19 Closing And Subscribe

★ Support this podcast ★

Creators and Guests

Host

Leslie Poston

What is PsyberSpace® - we help you understand your world?

PsyberSpace® is a weekly psychology podcast for curious people who want to understand why the world feels the way it does, online and offline. The show helps you name what you’re seeing and feeling, understand the science behind it, and figure out what to do next.

If you've ever wondered what makes "reply guys" tick, why we fall for emotionally manipulative language in politics, why meetings suck, why comfort can keep us stuck, why limerence hits so hard, or how music and media reshape your brain, you’re in the right place. New episodes drop every Monday to help you understand your world a little better each week.

PsyberSpace looks at how psychology, media, and big systems shape everyday life. Some weeks it’s algorithms, AI, and social platforms; other weeks it’s work culture, gender and power, climate anxiety, grief, or the way capitalism sets the baseline for what “normal” looks like. Each episode breaks down how these patterns show up in real people’s bodies and minds—and what you can do to respond with more clarity, care, and agency in your own life, work, and community.

2025 Webby Award Honoree
2026 Women in Podcasting Award Nominee
2025 Women in Podcasting Award Nominee
2024 Women in Podcasting Award Nominee

Leslie Poston: 00:10

Welcome back to PsyberSpace. I'm your host, Dr. Leslie Poston. This week, we're talking about a pattern that shows up everywhere once you start looking for it. When something goes wrong, we hunt for the one person who caused it.

Leslie Poston: 00:25

And when we want something fixed, we look for the one person who can save us. We do this in politics, corporate culture, our entertainment, and even in our spiritual lives. Both the blaming and the hoping protect us from the same uncomfortable recognition that most of our biggest problems are produced by systems, not individuals. And most of the solutions to those problems have to be structural, not personal. One well documented cognitive bias called fundamental attribution error does a lot to explain this.

Leslie Poston: 01:03

It goes something like this. When we watch someone else do something, we overweight their personality and underweight their situation. So someone cut you off in traffic. Ugh. They're a reckless jerk.

Leslie Poston: 01:17

You cut someone off in traffic and, oh, I was just late for a meeting. It's the same behavior, but completely different explanations, depending on whether you're the one doing it or the one watching. This asymmetry is the cognitive foundation for how we assign blame at every scale. At the individual level, it's why we assume the coworker who missed a deadline is lazy rather than overloaded. At the societal level, it's why we assume a CEO who presided over a scandal is uniquely corrupt, rather than asking what incentive structure made his or her corruption profitable and predictable.

Leslie Poston: 01:58

In complex systems, different people placed in the same structure tend to behave in similar ways. The structure shapes their behavior, but we keep replacing the person and expecting different outcomes from the next person occupying the same position inside the same set of incentives. A person is easy to see and easy to remember. The system that shaped their behavior operates in the background, in org charts and incentive structures and budget allocations. None of that fits in a headline.

Leslie Poston: 02:32

This tendency is also culturally variable. Meta analyses have found that the fundamental attribution error is much stronger in individualistic cultures like The United States. Societies that emphasize personal achievement and self reliance train people to look for personal causes to problems. Collectivist cultures show the bias less, which tells us something important. This bias is a learned behavior, and it's reinforced by the culture around us.

Leslie Poston: 03:03

It's not a fixed feature of human cognition. The just world hypothesis is also a factor, something we've talked about before. It's the deep need to believe that the world is fair, that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. When something goes wrong, that need pushes us to find a single individual who caused it. Someone who can be held responsible and punished so that fairness feels restored.

Leslie Poston: 03:33

If harm emerges from a system without a single villain, if nobody specifically chose to produce the bad outcome, the world feels more random to you, which can feel psychologically intolerable. Pinning it on a single person makes things feel like they make sense again. Scapegoating is one of the oldest social behaviors that humans have. Anthropologist Rene Girard built a theory around it that starts with what he called mimetic desire. We imitate each other's wants, which creates escalating rivalry, which in turn creates group tension.

Leslie Poston: 04:11

And when that tension reaches a crisis point, the group resolves it by converging onto a single victim. Everyone collectively decides that one person or one group is responsible for all of the community's problems. They project their mutual frustration onto this single target, and the target is then expelled or destroyed. Calm then feels like it returns, and because Calm followed the punishment, the group begins to conclude the scapegoat must have been guilty all along. The key here is the scapegoat doesn't need to have actually caused anything.

Leslie Poston: 04:49

Anyone who grew up with toxic parents as the scapegoat can tell you that that's true. They just need to be identifiable enough to serve as a plausible target. The process works regardless of whether the blame is accurate because its function is emotional resolution, not factual accuracy. More research has added experimental precision to this framework through a concept called collective narcissism, which is the belief that your in group is exceptional, but that its greatness isn't sufficiently recognized by others. It's different from ordinary group pride.

Leslie Poston: 05:24

Across multiple studies, collective narcissism predicts intergroup hostility independently of regular group identification. And any reason can be used to claim the group's exceptionality: moral superiority, cultural achievement, military power, religious favor, even exceptional suffering. The group doesn't just need a scapegoat to resolve tension. It needs one to validate their wound. And research has directly connected collective narcissism to the rise of certain movements, conspiracy thinking, science denial, and support for undemocratic leaders.

Leslie Poston: 06:03

Consider Trump as an example of this dynamic running in two directions simultaneously. For his supporters, collective narcissism provides the emotional fuel. A group that feels its greatness is unrecognized finds in him a vessel to force that recognition. For his opponents, the fundamental attribution error is going in the other direction. The concentration of public anger on Trump as a perceived singular cause of democratic erosion has made him the scapegoat for systemic problems that predate him by decades.

Leslie Poston: 06:41

Multiple political scientists have documented that the GOP's rightward radicalization, the structural advantages of the electoral college, systematic voter suppression, and the erosion of institutional guardrails were all well underway before Trump ran for office. He positioned himself as an outsider to a political machine that was already under construction and in many ways built. The system produced him, not the other way around. But because a face is more cognitively available than a flowchart, the public fixated on the individual. Now people say remove him and the problem resolves, but it didn't resolve after 2020, and the infrastructure that produced him has remained fully intact and growing.

Leslie Poston: 07:29

And the same pattern plays out in corporate accountability as well. After a scandal, one executive takes the fall. The board, the incentive structure, the regulatory gaps that made the bad behavior profitable all stay untouched. The perp walk of firing the CEO functions as a ritual resolution. The scapegoat pattern laying out in a courtroom instead of a town square.

Leslie Poston: 07:54

The other side of this pattern runs on the same set of biases, just pointed in the opposite direction. When we need someone to blame, we find a villain. But when we need something fixed, we find a savior. Think right now of mom Donnie in New York, who is wonderful and doing such good for the city, but who isn't doing it alone and who frequently reminds us that it's his team that helps him get things done. However, our cultural tendency is to position him as savior.

Leslie Poston: 08:27

This also collapses systemic complexity into a single human face. There's a body of experimental research called compensatory control theory that explains why this happens. When people's sense of personal control is lowered, they compensate by increasing their belief in and support for external controlling agents. Those agents can be a god, a government institution, or a powerful leader, and they're psychologically interchangeable. Lower belief in one and people increase investment in the others.

Leslie Poston: 09:02

This has been confirmed across 67 countries. Lower personal control correlates with higher support for governmental or religious control. The system is kind of hydraulic. When personal agency feels insufficient, people outsource their need for order to someone who appears to have things handled. And the converse is also true.

Leslie Poston: 09:24

When external systems of control are challenged, when people are told their government is unstable or ineffective, they might inflate illusory perceptions of personal control. Either way, the belief that the world is orderly and managed by someone competent can get preserved. Research on group dynamics explains how groups produce their saviors in the first place. In groups people identify with strongly, the person who best represents what the group is about gains influence almost automatically. Members are already moving toward that person's position, so that person appears to have influence simply by standing where everyone is heading.

Leslie Poston: 10:06

Then the group does what we talked about earlier with the fundamental attribution error, and it constructs a charismatic personality around that person, attributing the influence to their individual qualities rather than to their position. The group creates the leader and then credits the leader with the creation. There's also a tendency to defend existing social arrangements. We're motivated to see the current social order as fair and legitimate because doing so meets psychological needs for certainty and security. If the system is basically fine, then problems come from bad individuals and solutions come from good ones.

Leslie Poston: 10:49

A savior who works within the system is psychologically safer than the argument that the system itself needs redesigning. And when the system is threatened, people defend it harder, including by rallying around its leaders. System critique produces savior demand. The 2008 Obama campaign illustrates this quite well. Expectations were totally unrealistic, the kind of group fantasy that inevitably shatters against reality.

Leslie Poston: 11:19

People put his portrait in their homes and in their sacred spaces. He was maximally representative of the coalition that elected him. And the emotional attachment people felt was to what he represented rather than to him as an individual. Even though he did a good job as president, he was still one person operating inside a system that is specifically designed to resist rapid change through divided powers, filibusters, and things like partisan gridlock. When the system ground his agenda down, the disappointment became directed at him personally rather than at the structural obstacles.

Leslie Poston: 11:58

The system didn't change dramatically because the system can't be changed by one person operating within it. Take Dolly Parton. She occupied an even more revealing version of this pattern. The cultural response to her recent death was immediate canonization. The media called her an actual angel and the closest thing to a real life hero we've had.

Leslie Poston: 12:24

Scholars noted that her fandom resembled religious groups and how they organized around a single figure who inspired systems of belief, ritual, education, loyalty, etcetera. Sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom spent months mapping what she called the Dolly moment, and her central observation was that the artist doesn't create the totem status the culture does. And this is compensatory control in action. Dolly Parton filled the role of the external agent who appeared to have life handled. Both Obama and Parton did real meaningful things to help people.

Leslie Poston: 13:00

The problem's not them. The problem is what we do with them psychologically, which is to use their individual goodness as a substitute for confronting the systems that make individual goodness completely insufficient for making a better world. Culturally, our stories train us. The superhero genre follows the same formula every time, for example. A threat emerges and one exceptional individual rises to meet it.

Leslie Poston: 13:28

That individual defeats the threat through personal ability and moral will, and thus the status quo is restored. In these stories, the system is never the problem. The system just needs the right person to defend it. And the villain is the scapegoat, one bad actor who caused this, leaving the hero to be the savior, one good actor that can fix it. So the audience never has to confront systemic failure because the superhero narrative guarantees that individual action is always sufficient.

Leslie Poston: 14:01

For example, Tony Stark is a billionaire arms dealer whose redemption arc is individual transformation. He just builds a better suit. The military industrial complex that made him rich off of weapons contracts doesn't change. Batman, a well known vigilante character, fights crime with personal wealth and violence rather than funding the social infrastructure that would address the root causes of crime in Gotham. When the threat scales up in the Avengers model, the solution isn't institutional reform.

Leslie Poston: 14:33

It's just assembling a slightly larger team of exceptional people with fun abilities. The cultural critic framework for this is called the myth of the American superhero. When a community in harmonious paradise is threatened by evil and normal institutions fail, a selfless superhero performs a decisive act, and the hero recedes into obscurity. So in this structure, ordinary people and ordinary institutions are always insufficient. Progress only happens through exceptional, usually solo, superhero intervention.

Leslie Poston: 15:09

Cross cultural research on hero perception has found that individualistic cultures produce hero narratives centered on personal traits and personal achievement, while collectivist cultures emphasize sacrifice for collective interests. This feedback loop is important because the stories we consume don't just reflect our cognitive biases, they reinforce them. The Marvel Cinematic Universe alone has spent fifteen years and more than 30 films training audiences in a vocabulary where saving looks like one person with special abilities making this dramatic choice. And we can see how both the Obama and Dolly Parton examples fit onto this template. Obama was the superhero who would fix the broken system through personal excellence, whereas Dolly Parton was a quiet hero whose individual generosity would fill the gaps the system left.

Leslie Poston: 16:08

Both narratives let us all stay passive because the exceptional individual seems to have it handled. Some recent superhero media has started pushing back. For example, The Boys explicitly critiques corporate superhero culture. Watchmen deconstructs the assumption that vigilante individuals improve society. Counter narratives like these do exist, but they're positioned as subversive precisely because the default template is so deeply culturally established.

Leslie Poston: 16:38

Compensatory control applies to religious belief as well, but with a specific wrinkle. People don't increase their belief in just any god. They increase their belief in a type of god who intervenes in daily affairs and who is actively managing things in their lives. An abstract cosmic creator alone doesn't do the job. People want a god who has them specifically handled.

Leslie Poston: 17:05

Most major religious traditions in the Abrahamic faiths include a deliverer figure, one exceptional individual who redeems the community through personal sacrifice or divine authority. Christianity, for example, centers its salvation narrative on one person in three forms. Judaism holds a tradition of awaiting a messiah, and Islam recognizes prophetic figures who deliver divine truths. Moving away from Abrahamic faiths, Hindu traditions include avatars of Vishnu who descends to restore cosmic order. Each provides a compensatory control agent for communities experiencing uncertainty or threat.

Leslie Poston: 17:46

The pastor who says God has a plan and the politician who says I alone can fix it are both offering the same cognitive product assurance that someone else who is competent is managing the chaos that you feel. Religious and authoritarian frameworks both provide what people with a high need for cognitive closure want: Clear rules, clear authority, and a promise that someone is in charge. The same group dynamic I described with Obama applies to Trump, but powered by collective narcissism. Trump's base felt its greatness was unrecognized and its status was threatened, and he represented that grievance better than anyone else in the field. Research on authoritarianism identifies a cluster of related tendencies, which we've talked about in recent a submission to established authority, rigid adherence to social convention, and aggression toward people perceived as violating group norms.

Leslie Poston: 18:45

Collective narcissism correlates with authoritarianism but also predicts intergroup hostility beyond what authoritarianism alone accounts for. The group following an authoritarian leader isn't just obedient. It believes its greatness is unrecognized and that the leader is the person who will force that recognition. And this is why strong man followers often frame themselves as victims, even while they're exercising power or violence. The grievance is structural to that group's identity and not a response to actual deprivation.

Leslie Poston: 19:20

There's a model in political psychology called the moral politics framework that we've mentioned in earlier episodes as well. It describes how the strict father family structure, common in conservative religious communities, scales up to a preference for authoritarian governance. The father knows best at home, so the leader must know best in government. God knows best in the cosmos. It's the same mental template at all three scales.

Leslie Poston: 19:49

Superman's origin story, for example, borrows explicitly from Moses in the bible. Many superhero origins echo religious narrative patterns, divine or extraordinary parentage, a period of testing, some kind of special knowledge, and a mission to save others. Audiences receive the same template from their entertainment, their politics, and their spiritual communities, which means the one exceptional person will save us story is reinforced across nearly every domain of cultural life. As we've explored in previous episodes of the podcast, systems thinking is genuinely harder for people than person based thinking. Tracing causal change through multiple interacting variables, feedback loops, and emergent properties takes a sustained cognitive effort.

Leslie Poston: 20:42

Person based explanations are cognitively cheap. They have one cause, one effect, and just one face to remember. We're all kind of social primates reading intentions and assigning responsibility to individuals as what our neural hardware is optimized for, whereas reading structural incentive gradients is not. Human cognition is also very story driven, and systems don't have characters. They have feedback loops and incentive structures, and a story about one brave person who changes everything is just psychologically satisfying.

Leslie Poston: 21:21

Whereas a story about regulatory adjustments that gradually shift, Aggregated outcomes over multiple years might be accurate, but it's emotionally flat. I'm bored even saying that sentence. Media, politics, and religion all exploit this because the character driven version holds our attention. It generates engagement, and it builds loyalty. Systems thinking threatens personal control because it says the outcomes you experience are produced by structures you can't individually change.

Leslie Poston: 21:54

And that threat drives people toward their external controlling agents that we were talking about earlier leaders, gods, and institutions because they restore the feeling that someone has it handled. And the more clearly we explain that the system is the problem, the more people need a person to fix it. And this is why systems level critique often produces charismatic countermovements rather than structural reform. The explanation itself is triggering the very response it's trying to interrupt. And there's also an identity threat embedded in systems thinking.

Leslie Poston: 22:28

If we acknowledge that a system is producing harmful outcomes, then we're implicitly saying everyone participating in that system bears some responsibility, including ourselves. Whereas blaming Trump lets everyone who supported the structures that produced him off the hook. Waiting for Dolly Parton or Barack Obama everyone who benefits from the systems they were compensating for stay passive. Cottam's observation remains the sharpest version of this point. The culture creates the totem.

Leslie Poston: 22:59

We choose who to canonize and who to demonize based on our own psychological needs, not based on accurate accounting of how complex systems actually produce outcomes. So what do we do with all of this? Well, we can do a few things. When something goes wrong and your first instinct is to ask, Who did this? Instead ask what made this likely to happen?

Leslie Poston: 23:23

While both of these questions matter, the first without the second, make sure that the problem keeps repeating itself. And when you're looking for a single someone to fix a problem, ask instead what structural or systemic changes would make the problem less likely, regardless of who's in charge. If the solution depends entirely on one specific person being competent and moral, then the solution you're thinking of is fragile. And we need to learn to expect discomfort. If you haven't checked out our Comfort is the Enemy of Progress episode, highly recommend it.

Leslie Poston: 24:02

System thinking feels worse than person based thinking because it implicates more people, offers fewer clean resolutions, and operates on longer timelines. And that discomfort is just information about the actual complexity of the problem we need to solve. Thanks for listening to PsyberSpace. I'm your host, Leslie Poston, signing off. As always, until next time, stay curious.

Leslie Poston: 24:27

And don't forget to subscribe so you never miss an episode, and go click the like button or give us five stars on your favorite platform so more people can find us.