Evolution in the context of social animals, Individual V group interest

I am starting to think that not everyones brain works the same, and that some people have evolved almost entirely to subjugate the mind of other people. They add little to society and are almost entirely parasitical. Here's why.

Normally with species, the individual is the smallest unit, and they live or die by their ability to gather enough food, avoid predators and mate. Their survival can be helped by other individuals indirectly (like in the case of turtles all hatching on the beach at the same time) but it isn't determined by it.

That changes in social animals. Survival is heavily determined by an individuals ability to stay within the pack. Staying within the pack becomes almost entirely the only way *to* survive. That introduces a conflict between whats good for the individual, and what's good for the group. Naturally over a long time period you'd expect to see organs develop dedicated that group interest, to boost the group (a conscious would be one example). But you'd also expect to see other organs, which attempt to leverage control over others in a parasitical or semi-parasitical fashion, to boost the individuals survival chances at the *expense* of the group.

Now in small groups, this doesn't work so well. If a parasite leader gains control of 100 people, then reproduces to produce parasitical children, pretty quickly the group can't sustain itself and then either falls to nature or to other neighbouring groups. But in larger groups, especially ones capable of providing a heavy surplus or having no legitimate competition, this could go on for a while.

I would expect most people to end up with a balance between individual:social traits. We are all well aware of the archetype of the 95:5% type person, who can physically take care of themself but possesses terrible social skills and heavily struggles to interact with anyone else. But what about the reverse? The person who is 5:95%, who can't take care of themselves at all, but dominates social situations to persuade the group to provide for all their needs. You don't really hear about them too much, even as fictional characters. Why? Because if they control the group, then they control the very information channel that would inform you of their existence. It's against their interest to inform you.

If you accept this premise, then it raises the question, *why wouldn't the productive members discover the unproductive, and get rid of them*? I mean it's got to be pretty obvious when somebody is doing absolutely nothing of value, right?

Well, not necessarily. Crucially, it's not what people see, it's what people believe they see. These kinds of people don't need to be valuable, they just to be able to persuade you they are valuable. Or others, because at a certain point even if you despise a person you'll keep them in the group if you think your friends love them, because challenging them could threaten your own existence.

Notably, this trait doesn't have to be parasitic, it could be helpful. A member of a group who does nothing but boost group unity for the benefit of the whole group could more than pay for their living costs in the right context. But I would expect a selfish strategy to be more successful and stable in the short term (100-1000 years).

**What implications does this have if applied to the modern day?**

Well, it suggests that there are a significant amount of people out their with minds geared towards manipulating you. They would appear to have reputations of being the best, they might be very likable, or seem very competent. They might use indicators of success, like having nice faces or wearing good clothes or being able to talk really well. But when their actions, their attempts to physically do something with little to no help from anyone else, were separated from their stature and put under a microscope, they would seem like dolts. Complete idiots. Yet still, these people would be at or near the head of companies and major institutions. And in conversation they would dominate you as easily as a chess champion playing a beginner, because manipulating reality is their primary skill.