Individuals with aggressive, rule-breaking and anti-social tendencies are over-represented among executive leadership

[untermensche]

.

Humans can organize themselves in any way they choose however. We have evolved beyond the chicken and the baboon.

Humans can choose an authoritarian top down structure, based on monarchy and the military.

Or they might try a lateral power system, like the Jews did in the early kibbutzim.

And being humans they can make either system work.

It is a choice.

Top down dictatorship, or something less fitting a chicken.

It's surprising how much of human behaviour is unconscious and driven by instinct.

Then if not instinct, self interest.

Given self interest as a driver of decision making/behaviour, a pecking order being established is inevitable.

Hardly any different to chickens or Chimps or Baboons, all of which have a hierarchy, hence a 'pecking order.'

So basically you think you can draw a line from alleged "self interest" as the only driving force in human interaction to....top down hierarchy.

Absurd rubbish.

Humans have many driving forces and are easily capable of forming power structures NOT based on top down hierarchy.

That is what the evidence shows.

 

[untermensche]

A person starts a multi-million dollar company. They have the choice between retaining the brunt of that money and power over the company, or ceding it to someone else.

What do you mean they "start" a company?

If they need other people they haven't started anything. All the people involved have started something.

If a person can make money through their own efforts they can dictate to themselves.

If they need other people there is nothing that gives them the right to dictate.

If I need you I have no right what-so-ever to dictate over you.

 

[rousseau]

Those who make it to leadership roles have many common qualities, this being one of them. They're usually attractive, healthy, know what to say when, look smart, value wealth, and don't mind making unpopular decisions to acquire more wealth for themselves. Some aren't psychopatic, just very smart, and end up pushed into leadership roles where they find themselves stressed out and over-worked.

The problem is the hierarchical nature of organizations. The person who starts the company gives themselves all of the power and money. With that power comes the ability to dictate who will be his/her peers. And what's common about the people at the top? They make a lot of money. So if you offer a lot of money to those who reach the top, you're naturally going to attract people that are, for the most part, attracted by money. And people who are only attracted by money tend to have anti-social traits, hence the skew towards psychopathy among executives.

If you were to flatten an organization and make management a lateral move away from worker roles, you would attract people who actually wanted to manage into those roles, and the organization would be more effective because of it. The trouble with that is that the people with the power to flatten the organization are the ones making the money.

Might just be how humans naturally organize themselves.

The Op is not about hierarchy but the over representation of sociopaths in positions of power within hierarchy. If, as you say, hierarchy is the problem, it stands to reason that problematic people would be attracted to it. You are in effect proving the OP not disputing it.

True. I wasn't trying to disprove the OP, I was explaining why it's the case.

 

[rousseau]

A person starts a multi-million dollar company. They have the choice between retaining the brunt of that money and power over the company, or ceding it to someone else.

What do you mean they "start" a company?

If they need other people they haven't started anything. All the people involved have started something.

If a person can make money through their own efforts they can dictate to themselves.

If they need other people there is nothing that gives them the right to dictate.

If I need you I have no right what-so-ever to dictate over you.

You haven't addressed the premise of my post which is that acting in our own interest is almost always not really a choice.

Someone gives you the choice between having 20 dollars, or not having 20 dollars. What do you do? This is what happens in most of our day to day interactions.

Of course that's not a defence of hierarchical organizations, just an explanation of why they form.

 

[Harry Bosch]

A person starts a multi-million dollar company. They have the choice between retaining the brunt of that money and power over the company, or ceding it to someone else.

What do you mean they "start" a company?

If they need other people they haven't started anything. All the people involved have started something.

If a person can make money through their own efforts they can dictate to themselves.

If they need other people there is nothing that gives them the right to dictate.

If I need you I have no right what-so-ever to dictate over you.

When you hire a person to work on your personal house, do you dictate to him what to do?

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's surprising how much of human behaviour is unconscious and driven by instinct.

Then if not instinct, self interest.

Given self interest as a driver of decision making/behaviour, a pecking order being established is inevitable.

Hardly any different to chickens or Chimps or Baboons, all of which have a hierarchy, hence a 'pecking order.'

So basically you think you can draw a line from alleged "self interest" as the only driving force in human interaction to....top down hierarchy.

Absurd rubbish.

Humans have many driving forces and are easily capable of forming power structures NOT based on top down hierarchy.

That is what the evidence shows.

Self-interest has different events and outcomes than a top down hierarchy. You can still have self-interest play a major role even in non top down hierarchy.

 

[ronburgundy]

Sure, people who repeatedly take from others more than they deserve, with selfish disregard for fairness and decency are more likely to have stable negative personality traits that promote such unethical behaviors. That should be true whether they engage in such actions as a CEO or a decades-long welfare recipient with multiple children.

This OP actually supports that of the other thread it is trying to mock, rather than countering it. Valid theories of behavior should be able to account for behaviors in very different contexts.

Has there been a study done of "decades-long welfare recipient(s) with multiple children" that proves these people have a "selfish disregard for fairness and decency?"

Unless it is done with a gun to one's head, intentionally having multiple children while on welfare for decades is itself a repeated series of selfish acts showing disregard for fairness and decency. It is true by definition, we don't need a study for that any more than we need one to tell us that people who rape others have engaged in immoral act that shows no regard for the other person.

The empirical question is whether those that engage in such selfish acts repeatedly have identifiable negative personality traits that predict such behaviors. The thread that this OP was trying to mock links to studies suggesting that is the case.

 

[laughing dog]

The thread that this OP was trying to mock links to studies suggesting that is the case.

You seem to miss the point of this thread: it is biased to complain about the allegedly antisocial and detrimental behavior of one group while ignoring the identical allegedly antisocial and detrimental behavior of another group.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Has there been a study done of "decades-long welfare recipient(s) with multiple children" that proves these people have a "selfish disregard for fairness and decency?"

Unless it is done with a gun to one's head, intentionally having multiple children while on welfare for decades is itself a repeated series of selfish acts showing disregard for fairness and decency. It is true by definition, we don't need a study for that any more than we need one to tell us that people who rape others have engaged in immoral act that shows no regard for the other person.

The empirical question is whether those that engage in such selfish acts repeatedly have identifiable negative personality traits that predict such behaviors. The thread that this OP was trying to mock links to studies suggesting that is the case.

So the answer would be no.

 

[Trausti]

The thread that this OP was trying to mock links to studies suggesting that is the case.

You seem to miss the point of this thread: it is biased to complain about the allegedly antisocial and detrimental behavior of one group while ignoring the identical allegedly antisocial and detrimental behavior of another group.

Similar to when a psychology study announces that White people exhibit this or that awful trait or behavior, but completely ignores "testing" this or that awful trait or behavior in other peoples. There have been a few threads in this forum about that.

 

[ksen]

You seem to miss the point of this thread: it is biased to complain about the allegedly antisocial and detrimental behavior of one group while ignoring the identical allegedly antisocial and detrimental behavior of another group.

Similar to when a psychology study announces that White people exhibit this or that awful trait or behavior, but completely ignores "testing" this or that awful trait or behavior in other peoples. There have been a few threads in this forum about that.

Does my "White people are assholes" thread still sting?

 

[Trausti]

Similar to when a psychology study announces that White people exhibit this or that awful trait or behavior, but completely ignores "testing" this or that awful trait or behavior in other peoples. There have been a few threads in this forum about that.

Does my "White people are assholes" thread still sting?

At least you admit your hypocrisy.

 

[barbos]

I have been following a story of one scam company and it has been pretty fascinating string of CEO type of characters (lawyers, PhDs, few billionaires, some smaller CEOs and business owners). Amount of obvious bullshit these people produce is simply astounding. And what is more astounding people (investors) were and still are buying into it. I really don't understand why people so blind when I listen to CEO talk. It's very similar to politicians, I can't believe people don't see through people like Ted Cruz.

 

[untermensche]

What do you mean they "start" a company?

If they need other people they haven't started anything. All the people involved have started something.

If a person can make money through their own efforts they can dictate to themselves.

If they need other people there is nothing that gives them the right to dictate.

If I need you I have no right what-so-ever to dictate over you.

When you hire a person to work on your personal house, do you dictate to him what to do?

Not at all.

They do the work when THEY say they can, and tell me how they are going to do it and how much it will cost.

I may have a goal outlined, but how and when that goal is reached is up to them.

But of course in a company the workers don't need anybody to tell them the goals. They can easily figure that out for themselves.

In a company the dictator is ENTIRELY superfluous.

The workers are essential.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Sure, people who repeatedly take from others more than they deserve, with selfish disregard for fairness and decency are more likely to have stable negative personality traits that promote such unethical behaviors. That should be true whether they engage in such actions as a CEO or a decades-long welfare recipient with multiple children.

This OP actually supports that of the other thread it is trying to mock, rather than countering it. Valid theories of behavior should be able to account for behaviors in very different contexts.

Has there been a study done of "decades-long welfare recipient(s) with multiple children" that proves these people have a "selfish disregard for fairness and decency?"

No, but seeing how they're welfare recipients, is anyone really going to bother to check?

Let's just ASSUME they are and build a narrative from there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. The issue is that the hierarchical structure is the most efficient form for organizing a large group of people. Kibbutz stay small, amish villages stay small.

The Spanish Anarchists had huge communities and were highly industrialized.

And this concept of "efficiency" is incredibly ill defined.

For a dictator to command arbitrarily a top down structure is most efficient for that use.

But if an institution is not for that use then top down is not in any way more "efficient", whatever arbitrary definition you want to attach to that label.

So you don't like what the yardstick says so you throw it away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Spanish Anarchists had huge communities and were highly industrialized.

And this concept of "efficiency" is incredibly ill defined.

For a dictator to command arbitrarily a top down structure is most efficient for that use.

But if an institution is not for that use then top down is not in any way more "efficient", whatever arbitrary definition you want to attach to that label.

I keep thinking about China's great leap forward and how that killed possibly 30 million people creating great masses of worthless metal and a population going hungry precisely because it was centrally led by a command structure with a sociopathic desire to "industrialize." It motivated millions of people to perform acts of absolutely no value to the detriment of things like food production, housing maintenance, etc. etc. etc. The "efficiency" Colorado seems to feel is important is that of a structure such as the Pol Pot regime that involved everyone and demands their compliance and participation without a clue where that many people motivated thus may end up.

I know a couple of modern leaders who put their heads together and think great heaps of money will make everything alright...as long as the money is theirs:
View attachment 5618

You're the leftist--see where leftist thought gets you? The Great Leap Forward was about the ideas you espouse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A person starts a multi-million dollar company. They have the choice between retaining the brunt of that money and power over the company, or ceding it to someone else.

What do you mean they "start" a company?

If they need other people they haven't started anything. All the people involved have started something.

If a person can make money through their own efforts they can dictate to themselves.

If they need other people there is nothing that gives them the right to dictate.

If I need you I have no right what-so-ever to dictate over you.

The person who organizes it and supplies the needed tools starts the company.

Your inability to see the value in these things doesn't make them go away.

 

[DBT]

It's surprising how much of human behaviour is unconscious and driven by instinct.

Then if not instinct, self interest.

Given self interest as a driver of decision making/behaviour, a pecking order being established is inevitable.

Hardly any different to chickens or Chimps or Baboons, all of which have a hierarchy, hence a 'pecking order.'

So basically you think you can draw a line from alleged "self interest" as the only driving force in human interaction to....top down hierarchy.

Absurd rubbish.

Humans have many driving forces and are easily capable of forming power structures NOT based on top down hierarchy.

That is what the evidence shows.

I didn't say that self interest is the only driving force. Nor that altruism doesn't exist. I am saying that is a major factor.

Humans have many driving forces and are easily capable of forming power structures NOT based on top down hierarchy.

That is what the evidence shows

Evidence? Examples please.

Also, some examples of this chosen non hierarchical organization being......?

 

[barbos]

The Spanish Anarchists had huge communities and were highly industrialized.

And this concept of "efficiency" is incredibly ill defined.

For a dictator to command arbitrarily a top down structure is most efficient for that use.

But if an institution is not for that use then top down is not in any way more "efficient", whatever arbitrary definition you want to attach to that label.

I keep thinking about China's great leap forward and how that killed possibly 30 million people creating great masses of worthless metal and a population going hungry precisely because it was centrally led by a command structure with a sociopathic desire to "industrialize." It motivated millions of people to perform acts of absolutely no value to the detriment of things like food production, housing maintenance, etc. etc. etc. The "efficiency" Colorado seems to feel is important is that of a structure such as the Pol Pot regime that involved everyone and demands their compliance and participation without a clue where that many people motivated thus may end up.

I know a couple of modern leaders who put their heads together and think great heaps of money will make everything alright...as long as the money is theirs:
View attachment 5618

I know what they are laughing about, they are laughing about recent Clinton's promise to be tough on banksters.