Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - 5 Scientific Reasons Powerful People Will Always Suck

[ Add Tags ]

[ Return to Economics and Business | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Oct 07, 2010 - 17:23
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

http://www.cracked.com/article_18777_5-scientific-reasons-powerful-people-will-always-suck.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CrackedRSS+%28Cracked%3A+All+Posts%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Yup :(

Well this gives us some insight into Peter's and Jacques' minds, as well as anyone else in a position of power. But I guess we already knew most of it

#1 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
NanosPosted: Oct 07, 2010 - 17:48
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

Not everyone in a position of power is bad/doing a bad job.

The issue should be, how do we replace poor leaders with better ones, when the existing ones fail to see they are making mistakes, or admit to them..

Democracy for all of its faults, seems one of the more civilised ways to get rid of poor leaders, though often people aren't particularly good at voting in anyone better..

#2 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
AltonPosted: Oct 08, 2010 - 01:33
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

Nice analysis. This goes to show why it can be a danger to people's pursuit to happiness in the long run relying on a group or person to have monopoly power or too much power over them. On the other hand, people can simply just have options for themselves personally and where their choices for happiness aren't ruling over other lives who did not choose it. As for people with power as far as money and wealth, certain people are not fit for it.

#3 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Oct 08, 2010 - 12:15
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

I guess Zeitgeist is right about the corrupting influence of power. But somehow I can't help but think it serves a useful evolutionary social purpose - maybe something akin to how wolves work better in packs, and to have a successful pack you need (sometimes unprincipled?) leadership. Could work similarly in humans.

#4 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
NanosPosted: Oct 08, 2010 - 12:35
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

Leadership is a balance between giving people what they need, and what they want.

#5 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Oct 08, 2010 - 12:40
(0)
 

Level: 6
CS Original

I agree with TZM on the point of privatized power being not better (and possibly worse) than government power (except Chomsky's been saying this forever), but the abolition of money and government would obviously just leave us in a state of power vacuum, soon to be filled by the charismatic idiots with "SSA" on their foreheads.

Would be interesting to analyze the effects of personal biases, group think and impaired judgment in TZM - why they let PJ make all decisions, why they don't question TVP and why there're no naysayers in positions of any power.

#6 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Burger KingPosted: Oct 08, 2010 - 13:04
(0)
 

I can't stop posting pictures of poop, what the fuck is wrong with me?

Level: 5
CS Original

@CyborgJesus I would also throw in why do they not question RBE, and how is RBE any better then the system we have now and not just simply because it's different.

#7 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
NanosPosted: Oct 08, 2010 - 15:28
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

> why there're no naysayers in positions of any power.

Such people are banned remember :-)

I remember once in a previous organisation being a naysayer, to slience me they didn't ban me, but they made my account unable to post (Then PM, then deleted my blog, then deleted my profile until there was no avenue left to pass messages inside their system.) and deleted all the logs on who did that.

As I managed to communicate via other mediums to let other people in charge know, one by one they too was pushed out, unable to post, and just appeared as if they hadn't got anything to say.. (As the logs was deleted, no one knew which admin to point the finger at.. (A lesson in not having too many admins..))

Until there was just one person in charge..

And then the organisation closed down..

#8 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
NanosPosted: Oct 08, 2010 - 15:39
(0)
 

Level: 0
CS Original

Watching folk in other organisations climb the ladder, the one thing I notice they do a lot of is agree with whatever the person above them says.

Its perhaps interesting to note that many of these people, once in positions of power, then just give up doing anything, its as if they have won a prize and go and find another one to get elsewhere.

I remember in my last 9 to 5 job, being told at a management meeting that by speaking up against top management by pointing out their errors in what they was talking about, that I was ruining my career. I replied that I didn't care about my career, I just wanted to do a good job, and if that meant telling the head honcho that the report he is reading from says 30% when he is saying 90%, he is either lying, or cannot read, as I have a copy of the exact same report in my hand too! (I bumped into the person who did the report and asked them for a copy before the meeting, a common tactic I employ to make sure I have the same facts to hand as those making the big decisions..)

It was a bit like a panto moment, when she would say '90%' and I'd stand up and say in a loud voice '30%', she'd then repeat herself, and so would I!

Eventually playing my trump card of waving my copy of the report, at which point she asked me where I got that!

After I pointed out I got it from the engineer who compiled it that morning before the meeting, she shut up and sat down, but looked awfully angry at me :-)

I was championing the workforce as management said the lifts worked 90% of the time, whilst the offical engineer report said they only worked 30% of the time..

As such, we got new lifts :-)

I'm sure you've heard me tell the story of how the lifts was measured in inches and ordered in centimetres.. :-)

#9 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
AltonPosted: Oct 08, 2010 - 15:55
(0)
 

Level: 1
CS Original

@CyborgJesus

The "private" vs. "public" dualism is really a false dichotomy when it comes to people already interacting with each other and being part of a society or part of a social structure of power other members of society are aware of. In other words, society is technically a public system.

#10 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]