View Full Version : Narcissists most likely to end up in charge


SB_UK
07-11-14, 02:59 PM
Vain boss? Narcissists most likely to end up in charge, scientists find http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10939320/Vain-boss-Narcissists-most-likely-to-end-up-in-charge-study-finds.html

Nothing to add.

Flat structures not Hierarchical structures.

And what's the flat structure equivalent in government.

Begins with A ends in an arky.

Lunacie
07-11-14, 03:04 PM
Hm. It's just one study though, done with those in a narrow career field.

Will be interesting to see if further research is done and replicates this.

SB_UK
07-11-14, 03:36 PM
Hm. It's just one study though, done with those in a narrow career field.

Will be interesting to see if further research is done and replicates this.

It will.

Taking the credit for the hard work of others (ie earning more, having the bigger office, working less hard, getting to travel the world ie all the perks of management, telling people what to do instead of doing it yourself) can only be accepted by an individual who is parasitic on rather than integral in some operation.

Just yesterday the kids has Top Gear on with Jeremy Clarkson continually repeating that he is an Officer and it's well known that Officers do no need to do any work in their Burma Special.

And the last hour - just before seeing this article has featured my wife describing how lazy her boss has become - so lazy that know they're having to bypass him in order to remain functional; already 2 formal complaints against him by others ... ... ...

None of this (what's in the article) should come as any surprise.

Same with this article -
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1663677#post1663677

Common comment - 'well duh!'

Do people not know that bosses are overwhelming lazy psychos.

Surely somebody's seen 'The Office' ?

Where I am currently - one cleaner is trying to ingratiate herself with the boss by getting the other cleaners into trouble in the expectation of becoming their supervisor.
It's all just a variation of this one grubby theme.

Getting on for personal benefit regardless of the harm one does to others.

The new spirit of the age - gaining wealth forgetting all but self

addthree
07-11-14, 04:20 PM
Bosses also have much more responsibility and are held accountable for their underlings actions. I have had plenty of bosses that actually do work and are not afraid to get their hands dirty.

SB_UK
07-11-14, 04:27 PM
I haven't.

Key skill of boss - evasion of responsibility.

They do certainly pretend that they've more responsibility - but they have to ... ...

but the article is science and so personal opinions carry less weight.

SB_UK
07-11-14, 04:32 PM
The number of times I've repeated this on site:

Narcissists gravitate to positions that can feed their hunger for power and status, said Mr Gimso.

addthree
07-11-14, 04:45 PM
What was your point? That every boss is Narcissistic? It is possible that narcissists may gravitate to these type of positions but not every boss is a narcissist. Someone somewhere must be in charge. Otherwise it would be total chaos.

Lunacie
07-11-14, 06:59 PM
It will.

Taking the credit for the hard work of others (ie earning more, having the bigger office, working less hard, getting to travel the world ie all the perks of management, telling people what to do instead of doing it yourself) can only be accepted by an individual who is parasitic on rather than integral in some operation.

Just yesterday the kids has Top Gear on with Jeremy Clarkson continually repeating that he is an Officer and it's well known that Officers do no need to do any work in their Burma Special.

And the last hour - just before seeing this article has featured my wife describing how lazy her boss has become - so lazy that know they're having to bypass him in order to remain functional; already 2 formal complaints against him by others ... ... ...

None of this (what's in the article) should come as any surprise.

Same with this article -
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1663677#post1663677

Common comment - 'well duh!'

Do people not know that bosses are overwhelming lazy psychos.

Surely somebody's seen 'The Office' ?

Where I am currently - one cleaner is trying to ingratiate herself with the boss by getting the other cleaners into trouble in the expectation of becoming their supervisor.
It's all just a variation of this one grubby theme.

Getting on for personal benefit regardless of the harm one does to others.

You do know that The Office isn't reality, yes?

Shows like that always exaggerate stuff.

daveddd
07-11-14, 07:04 PM
What was your point? That every boss is Narcissistic? It is possible that narcissists may gravitate to these type of positions but not every boss is a narcissist. Someone somewhere must be in charge. Otherwise it would be total chaos.

we all need someone to tell us what to do?

like hitler, manson....

Stevuke79
07-11-14, 11:21 PM
I haven't.

Key skill of boss - evasion of responsibility.

They do certainly pretend that they've more responsibility - but they have to ... ...

but the article is science and so personal opinions carry less weight.

That may be where you are now and it's definitely true at the levels of lower and middle management particularly in larger organizations. But as you rise through the ranks you will see that the people at the top either need to perform or they get the hatchet. Let's have this discussion again and see if your view hasn't changed once you're further along your career. (Unless it's the public sector - then you're right)

daveddd
07-11-14, 11:41 PM
That may be where you are now and it's definitely true at the levels of lower and middle management particularly in larger organizations. But as you rise through the ranks you will see that the people at the top either need to perform or they get the hatchet. Let's have this discussion again and see if your view hasn't changed once you're further along your career. (Unless it's the public sector - then you're right)

abs a world renoun researcher in molecular medicine

thats pretty high up

Stevuke79
07-11-14, 11:56 PM
So I've heard. I don't buy it.

daveddd
07-12-14, 12:33 AM
So I've heard. I don't buy it.

he is...


and very intelligent


doesn't mean anyone has to agree with his views though

just saying

daveddd
07-12-14, 12:35 AM
a ton of bosses and leader are narcissists for sure though

Stevuke79
07-12-14, 12:47 AM
Oh that's for sure. The research cited by the article (and there has been much such research) refers to bosses having narcissistic traits, (as opposed to being actual narcissists, whom research shows are actually self destructive and don't get very far in the long run) but why split hairs. I'm ok with the very slightly imprecise semantics of: many very successful people are narcissists. True enough.

But regarding SB's assertions that we are do-nothing avoiders of responsibility, all I can say is: not in the private sector.

Stevuke79
07-12-14, 01:06 AM
he is...


and very intelligent


doesn't mean anyone has to agree with his views though

just saying

Still don't buy it, which as you point out is completely separate from whether I agree with him. If ever the fact is restated, let's just assume I keep giving the same response. It will save time and length in the thread.

SB_UK
07-12-14, 03:39 AM
:-)

There are plenty of examples of people switching from public to private and from private to public sector.
I've done it.

It's a little bit peculiar to make the comment that narcissist/psychopaths dominate in public sector but not in private sector.

Maybe it's not true any more - but previously it was considered that the money/power in the private sector was greater than in public sector ... ... and so surely it stands to reason that if
Narcissists gravitate to positions that can feed their hunger for power and status, said Mr Gimso.
- that the private sector's where you'd find them.

SB_UK
07-12-14, 03:39 AM
You do know that The Office isn't reality, yes?

Shows like that always exaggerate stuff.

It wouldn't be funny unless it was exposing something real.

SB_UK
07-12-14, 03:45 AM
molecular medicine

The problem with molecular medicine.

10 years ago - a comment relating to the type of study I've attempted -

'there's a desperate nature to these types of studies' (Stabile)

Mol med/genetics/genetic manipulation seems (superficially) 'clever' - but as Stabile mentions - scratch the surface and the scientific foundations justifying many of the studies collapses.

So it feels as though any expertise gained has represented wasted effort.

And so even though I spend time criticising the legal system (people who tell you what to do) - I'm pretty sure that the entire world of molecular medicine will also be decimated by sense.

I think we may have had to get ourselves into the hole we're in ie of monstrous amounts of data which we can't make head nor tail about by virtue of next generation sequencing to reach this realization.

SB_UK
07-12-14, 03:49 AM
The Office represents accurate, dull reality


http://www2.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/archives/story.html?id=1d893189-601f-4c6f-b863-d0467b064830


Lazy feckless bosses.
Dim-witted creeps who attempt to ingratiate themselves with the boss.
Bored staff.

And then you die.

SB_UK
07-12-14, 03:53 AM
Hey, SB:
There’s a desperate sense to the genetic studies I’ve seen. The problem is that the statistical view has a compelling nature, and the dangers aren’t obvious. But the result is bad science, in my not so humble opinion.

What we are increasingly doing, in this modern world of studies that reanalyze and reinterpret data from other studies, is giving up on the scientific idea of actually explaining the mechanisms at work in some process of nature.

There is even an idea being promoted that it is somehow morally incorrect to try to understand such connections when they involve the function of the mind. This by some big guns, too, most notably Noam Chomsky.

Here is our problem with the type of study that you cite: we know that there is an additional level of logic between the context that is directly affected by genetic information and the conscious experiential context in which we identify AD/HD. This additional layer of logic makes the contribution of the genetic material indirect, at best.

Think of a person driving a car in which the brakes have failed, perhaps because the alloy used in the brake lines wasn’t appropriate for the stress of the application.

ADD is comparable to the emotional situation of the driver as he/she bears down on a sharp curve, out of control.

The kind of genetic information in these studies is comparable to the concise metallurgical definition of the alloy.

There is an obvious connection to the failure and the situation, but it is only a tiny part if the whole.

In the context of the situation, most would agree that considering such information would be a dangerous waste of effort. It isn’t any help at all in dealing with the issue of staying calm and getting the car stopped safely.

When we are able to talk specifically about the connection of the genes involved to the mechanisms that give rise to various symptoms of AD/HD, then such information might be of some interest.

If that doesn’t do it for you, try this:

There is a strong (and correct) statistical relationship between a certain percentage of high speed automobile accidents and blown tires. But the problem isn’t poor design, substandard materials, or anything else to do with the tires. It’s almost always due to under inflation, and that’s a social problem with the driver, not a mechanical problem with the tires.

It’s like that. We just make note of these kinds of genetic studies for now, because they might have an interesting application in the future. But other than that, we ignore them. The people doing them aren’t interested enough in what they’re studying to even try to connect their results to ADD.

And that doesn’t do it for us. We set out to understand this stuff. It’s not like it’s rocket science.

OK, it is, but they could still try a bit harder…




Peat Bog 's hovel.

SB_UK
07-12-14, 03:58 AM
Now it's certain that we often need somebody to teach us how to do something.

But the difference between a boss and a proper teacher is that the boss seeks to keep you down whereas the proper teacher seeks to be surpassed.

There certainly is room for proper teachers - but you don't select for this type of person in a competitive workplace environment where the love/desire of moey, power, sexual conquests is the driving motivation.

IE in our current thicko world - it's not about quality - quality benefits as the cream rises and replicates, not the overbloated puffy stools (<- this world).

stef
07-12-14, 04:35 AM
My boss is one of the most hard working, efficient people I've ever met.

Unmanagable
07-12-14, 04:36 AM
:-)

There are plenty of examples of people switching from public to private and from private to public sector.
I've done it.

It's a little bit peculiar to make the comment that narcissist/psychopaths dominate in public sector but not in private sector.

Maybe it's not true any more - but previously it was considered that the money/power in the private sector was greater than in public sector ... ... and so surely it stands to reason that if
- that the private sector's where you'd find them.

It's still true in my experiences. I'm a survivor of having to go head to head with many of the f'rs in the public sector. Now I'm a frequent flyer of our downtown area with the volunteer stuff I'm doing, all private sector businesses, and there's plenty owners who are eat up with it. Big time. I've had several offer me paid gigs that I turned down because of it. They're everywhere, with a few good ones scattered about.

SB_UK
07-12-14, 05:43 AM
My boss is one of the most hard working, efficient people I've ever met.

Don't you feel demeaned by referring to somebody as your boss ?

As far as I can see - a team consists of people with differing specialities which together generate something of worth.

I can't see any need for somebody to oversee proceedings - every need though for high quality specialists who integrate within a project.

But what if the specialists disagree.

It's likely that if specialists disagree then the team is dysfunctional - having some lazy, feckless glory seeker making random decisions based on subjective whim and just because of the power which s/he feels through making the decision isn't compatible with project success.

Sadly - people who aren't enthused about what they do - slack off and seek management positions.

The core problem is that people aren't enthused about what they do.

...the dullness of existence within an office.

SB_UK
07-12-14, 05:50 AM
Nobody ever dies wishing they’d spent more time at the office



One for Unmanageable's thread on quotations.

SB_UK
07-12-14, 05:54 AM
If 2 minutes and 22 seconds of your time is too precious - how about the 20 seconds from ?

1:40 - 2:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBmWMjohgI0

SB_UK
07-12-14, 05:56 AM
As far as I can see - a team consists of people with differing specialities which together generate something of worth.

I can't see any need for somebody to oversee proceedings - every need though for high quality specialists who integrate within a project.



And therein lies the argument for anarchy versus feckless sophist demagogues currying favour through offering cuts in taxation.

:-) an end to money brings with it an end to taxation !

The relationship between government and the workplace should be obvious to see.

anarchy versus feckless sophist demagogues currying favour through offering cuts in taxation.
anarchy = teamwork of equals

feckless sophist demagogues currying favour through offering cuts in taxation = a boss who promises you a pay rise if you'll do his dirty work

whippet-thin creep Garethhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/images/200/gareth_door.jpg

SB_UK
07-12-14, 06:26 AM
Now tied into ADHD.

Pre-Frontal Cortex reward (external reward - money)
vs
Anterior Cingulate Cortex reward (internal reward - personal satisfaction)

Society panders to PFC reward.
ADDers tend toward ACC reward.

PFC reward courts a hierarchical social structure ie bribery democracy / wage slavery in a hierarchical corporate structure
ACC reward represents a flat social structure ie anarchy and team work

My basic point is that ADDers are different by virtue of reward system, expresses itself in the form of social architecture of human relations.

Or ADDers can't be told what to do by so called 'superiors' -
where using full logic - anybody who can take the term 'superior' is by defintion 'inferior' ie lesser.

Nobody is any 'better' than any other person.
So there's no justification for some to have more than the others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_the_99%25).

daveddd
07-12-14, 06:47 AM
ever see the american office?

the boss (steve carrell) has adhd i think

Lunacie
07-12-14, 09:52 AM
It wouldn't be funny unless it was exposing something real.

There is a kernel of truth, which does make it funny (to some), but as I pointed out, it's greatly exaggerated.


Don't you feel demeaned by referring to somebody as your boss ?

As far as I can see - a team consists of people with differing specialities which together generate something of worth.

I can't see any need for somebody to oversee proceedings - every need though for high quality specialists who integrate within a project.

But what if the specialists disagree.

It's likely that if specialists disagree then the team is dysfunctional - having some lazy, feckless glory seeker making random decisions based on subjective whim and just because of the power which s/he feels through making the decision isn't compatible with project success.

Sadly - people who aren't enthused about what they do - slack off and seek management positions.

The core problem is that people aren't enthused about what they do.

In the business sector, someone has to be responsible in the end.
I don't want that person to be me.

I like my boss.
She works way harder than I do, than I want to.
I don't want to be the boss.

If you want to be your own boss, start your own company, eh?

SB_UK
07-12-14, 10:05 AM
ever see the american office?

the boss (steve carrell) has adhd i think

Will keep an eye out.

PolaBear
07-12-14, 10:26 AM
Now tied into ADHD.

Pre-Frontal Cortex reward (external reward - money)
vs
Anterior Cingulate Cortex reward (internal reward - personal satisfaction)

Society panders to PFC reward.
ADDers tend toward ACC reward.

PFC reward courts a hierarchical social structure ie bribery democracy / wage slavery in a hierarchical corporate structure
ACC reward represents a flat social structure ie anarchy and team work

My basic point is that ADDers are different by virtue of reward system, expresses itself in the form of social architecture of human relations.

Or ADDers can't be told what to do by so called 'superiors' -
where using full logic - anybody who can take the term 'superior' is by defintion 'inferior' ie lesser.

Nobody is any 'better' than any other person.
So there's no justification for some to have more than the others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_the_99%25).

If this is true (and I can relate), where then do adhd people become successful?

eclectic beagle
07-12-14, 11:03 AM
My boss is one of the most hard working, efficient people I've ever met.

I also know someone whose boss is incredibly hard working and kind. Not to say all bosses are that way, but as someone else mentioned, maybe the sector partially determines the likelihood of a certain personality type being in charge.

SB_UK
07-12-14, 11:40 AM
If this is true (and I can relate), where then do adhd people become successful?

It isn't possible for the ADDer to be successful in anything particularly in a world where the wrong reward system defines success.

We can be successful - but the nature of our success wouldn't be considered success by others.

Escaping people and being outside in the sun in the complete silence with my dog makes me feel successful.

SB_UK
07-12-14, 11:43 AM
If this is true (and I can relate), where then do adhd people become successful?

We need a definition of success which is not limited to the acquisition of money and power.

Luckily there is one - and the great religions merge in pointing us towards escaping the love/desire of money and power as the only worthy goal for man.

So - there's the answer.

Fast-track enlightenment.

Not becoming waylaid climbing the property, workplace, social ladders
- for all of that is complete nonsense.

stef
07-12-14, 02:34 PM
Don't you feel demeaned by referring to somebody as your boss ?

As far as I can see - a team consists of people with differing specialities which together generate something of worth.

I can't see any need for somebody to oversee proceedings - every need though for high quality specialists who integrate within a project.

But what if the specialists disagree.

It's likely that if specialists disagree then the team is dysfunctional - having some lazy, feckless glory seeker making random decisions based on subjective whim and just because of the power which s/he feels through making the decision isn't compatible with project success.

Sadly - people who aren't enthused about what they do - slack off and seek management positions.

The core problem is that people aren't enthused about what they do.

No I don't feel demeaned, i don't have the drive nor communication skills and i would not want the resposibility. he has his own specialty plus manages the firm with contagious enthusiasm. He is certainly an exception but there really are some decent, competent people out there. (I've worked in the past for many types of people including a genius who could manage nothing and an evil narcissist.)

Daydreamin22
07-12-14, 06:31 PM
Just read the title. I hope that's ok... But I've been thinking about this subject for two hours and every day for months.. Here's what I've learned/my input. (As a target) don't mean to just spit out facts, but...

In 72% of workplace bullying cases the bully is a supervisor. It's always done to get ahead. They don't have a definite stat on who gets bullied. It has more to do with the bullier than the targeted person.

If your in the path of a person with narcissistic and aggressive tendencies you're in a dangerous situation. Literally. The executives are responsible for changing their institution in a way that creates a culture where workplace bullying (which is most likely a case of full on mobbing by everyone) does not advance people and does not keep valuable work or potential work of the targeted person from happening. Lots of money is lost due to bullies.

They are concerned about themselves above all else. Harsh, but true.

Lunacie
07-12-14, 06:47 PM
Just read the title. I hope that's ok... But I've been thinking about this subject for two hours and every day for months.. Here's what I've learned/my input. (As a target) don't mean to just spit out facts, but...

In 72% of workplace bullying cases the bully is a supervisor. It's always done to get ahead. They don't have a definite stat on who gets bullied. It has more to do with the bullier than the targeted person.

If your in the path of a person with narcissistic and aggressive tendencies you're in a dangerous situation. Literally. The executives are responsible for changing their institution in a way that creates a culture where workplace bullying (which is most likely a case of full on mobbing by everyone) does not advance people and does not keep valuable work or potential work of the targeted person from happening. Lots of money is lost due to bullies.

They are concerned about themselves above all else. Harsh, but true.

I can't find any confirmation of that statistic. Where did you see that information?

SB_UK
07-13-14, 03:20 AM
Just read the title. I hope that's ok... But I've been thinking about this subject for two hours and every day for months.. Here's what I've learned/my input. (As a target) don't mean to just spit out facts, but...

In 72% of workplace bullying cases the bully is a supervisor. It's always done to get ahead. They don't have a definite stat on who gets bullied. It has more to do with the bullier than the targeted person.

If your in the path of a person with narcissistic and aggressive tendencies you're in a dangerous situation. Literally. The executives are responsible for changing their institution in a way that creates a culture where workplace bullying (which is most likely a case of full on mobbing by everyone) does not advance people and does not keep valuable work or potential work of the targeted person from happening. Lots of money is lost due to bullies.

They are concerned about themselves above all else. Harsh, but true.


Exactly my observation also - thanks for figures ... ...

SB_UK
07-13-14, 03:26 AM
Personally didn't experience bullying until workplace where it became relentless - whether public or private sector.

As for the people in the workplace.

I haven't found anybody who is interested in what they're doing.

So much so that I wrote to ADDF:E boy on this site ~10 years ago - that he impressed me in that he seemed interested in science
- a quality which I'd never encountered in scientists.

Just wannabe next great discovery limelight seekers.

The number of times that I've heard about reviewers scooping the research of science they're reviewing or scientists stealing ideas which're presented in grant proposals for them to review - stealing the idea and rejecting the grant proposal or senior members of scientific labs putting postdocs in highly speculative research as cannon fodder ie if it comes off (unlikely) the lab head will get much prestige - but if not the postdoc will not have their grant renewed

- and science, one would think, would be better than the average dumbo legal/financial office.

UUltimately though no different.

The love/desire of money, power, prestige.

Where all of that is nonsense.

From the moment you're born you're dead unless you can accomplish one teensy weensy goal in which case eternal life is yours.

Not cosmetic surgery for eternal youth but morality (a personal enquiry and application)
- which is the exact opposite of what people do in this world.

Too much ego where there is no such thing as a spoon.

SB_UK
07-13-14, 03:32 AM
Just read the title.

Me too :)

I think we both know what's in the article without reading it

- so why bother ?

Life is short.

Daydreamin22
07-13-14, 12:55 PM
It's a Statistic that supports the title. It's from a book.http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0470942207?pc_redir=1404709767&robot_redir=1

Wrenchman
07-13-14, 01:07 PM
In reading some of the replies to the OP and the article mentioned... Most of the replies appear to me to be from employees of larger corporations. For the most part large corporations originally started out as an idea from one person. This persons idea was greater than they were. This person is the boss... The boss cared for his idea. It was his baby if you will... He fed it by surrounding himself with people who could provide the care his baby needs to grow. He is satisfied internally with what his idea is growing into. He shows his appreciation to the ones who have helped him grow his baby into a child by compensating them with two things that are important in life. The first is financial compensation which helps those who care for his child take care of their child. The other is emotional compensation. This is a more difficult compensation to realize or feel for some. This emotional compensation if you will is communication the boss gives the ones he has surrounded himself with and lets them know that without them his idea would not be doing as well as it is..... So far this sounds like a fairy tale..... but it is not.... This is how most of your small business entrepreneurs feel about there business....... Here is where the wheels fall off the cart so to speak..... Once this child if you will grows larger than the business man and his team can take care of and becomes an adult.... someone decides it needs to go public and become a large corporation..... The Original holder of the idea. The father figure of the business.... loses the ability for see that this business stays true to his original ideas..... This thing becomes a monster filled with people who do not put the original idea first and become so self centered with trying to move up another notch in middle management that the place becomes a miserable pot of skewed ideology and visions. So all the employees due to the skewed ideology wear the jaded glasses of employment . These glasses filter out the bright and shiny and the wonderfulness of the original ideas... The jaded glasses only let the self centeredness of their boss filter in. These glasses keep out the emotional compensation that is needed to insure the employee has the same vision as the father of the idea......

Long story short..... when more than one person tries to drive the car..... IT will always end up in the ditch....
Sorry for the long post.... This was a lot of ideas that have been floating in my head for a while.... I am about to venture out and start a business and strive not to lose site of my ideas or the fact that without the right people surrounding me I cannot see ideas become reality.

ruby.149.42
07-13-14, 10:37 PM
If 2 minutes and 22 seconds of your time is too precious - how about the 20 seconds from ?

1:40 - 2:00


Wow - doesn't that just nail it?

No time to question the futility of it at any point along the way.

ruby.149.42
07-13-14, 10:51 PM
Luckily there is one - and the great religions merge in pointing us towards escaping the love/desire of money and power as the only worthy goal for man.
Bless their hearts - methinks a bit more walking the walk might be in order for a few of them.

A few religious institutions themselves often represent the worst hierarchical narcissistic structures. Lots of great lessons we can pick up for them though.


Fast-track enlightenment.
Not becoming waylaid climbing the property, workplace, social ladders
- for all of that is complete nonsense.

Absolutely, though which fast-track?

I'm very interested in this (http://shinzenyoung.blogspot.com.au/2012_04_01_archive.html) horse.

SB_UK
07-14-14, 04:51 AM
There's a very real sense that there are 2 definitions for key ideas in this (thick) world and the world that human beings ought to have shaped by now.

There is no need for the term boss.
However - there will be a need for a teacher (guide) whose role it is to be surpassed.

The boss in the standard thicko workplace we're forced to endure seeks to suppress.

Surpassed -> leads to a better world.
Suppressed -> will tear this world apart.

Ultimately - the individual who seeks to be surpassed is operating under a social reward system.
The individual who seeks to suppress is operating under a selfish reward system.

The reward system one *chooses* is influenced by the life one leads.

It's not a choice one makes explicitly - but a choice one makes by the life one leads.

IE feed an addiction and you become more addicted - don't and you don't.

The disease or addiction is love of money/power/stuff
- feed it and the addiction grows.

Overcome it through an enquiry/application into morality and it dies.

There's a natural predisposition towards feeding the love/desire of money/power as it's a more primitive agenda ie comes more naturally.

The pursuit of morality - at loggerheads to the pursuit of money/power - kills off the pursuit of money/power - though it's clear to the individual getting their kicks from the pursuit of money/power that the pursuit of morality is not compatible - ie kinda' brings about pain - because it's akin to cold turkey in heroin addiction
- and so they don't bother
- but what they do which is very 'clever' is invent things like charity which are used to assuage their conscience and prevent them from staring clearly into the mirror.

Other tricks for avoiding seeing oneself as the problem include recharacterizing other people as bad ie those nasty foreigners come here and become thieves or take our jobs, charity, attemptng to be overly sociable (well people like me ... ...)

It's all just very simple to see - if people 'd care to look.

-*-

Core problem

- 2 reward systems.

ADDers get reward from a social reward paradigm.
NonADDers can get reward from a selfish reward paradigm.

-*-

Can become a little tricky to decipher as ADDers fall victim to addiction to selfish reward paradigms and nonADDers switch (wisdom) to a social reward paradigm

- and so if I just write that all that's required is for people to work out for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and to do what is right
- in a society which assists and does not hinder this process (process = a meaningful definition of what education should be).

My signature.

SB_UK
07-14-14, 04:57 AM
Personally - I love to be beaten.
Because I get better when I'm beaten.

Society breeds people who want to beat.

Your goal is to be better.
Not to be better than ... ...

The golden rule of our current rotten society
Round up your average professional footballer and get them in competition them against the local hospice second XI.
They'll find the OAPs easy to take a bite out of.

Therein lies the essential problem with rich and poor countries competing within a global economic system
- the poor don't stand a chance.

Yes - it's true that some benefits will appear to occur - however some people who 'walk the plank' end up floating ashore - and living their lives on a sun-drenched island.

Very few though - and there is a MUCH MUCH better way.

One billion people live in slums – that's one in six of us.

Population of USA + Europe !!

SB_UK
07-14-14, 05:08 AM
Once again to re-iterate.

Choose addiction (money/power)
or
what's right

- and whichever of these paths one chooses to live one's life
- will determine whether the individual stands a chance of {completing mind,wisdom,gaining freedom,actually becoming alive,losing addictive propensity,living healthily,becoming enlightened,gaining free will ... ... ...

Oh my!
How many ways to describe what is in effect the end of the human metamorphic cycle
- of attaining happiness (no need to activate the reward system for 'kicks')
- for preparing oneself for death

- for living a meaningful life.

-*-

And it's impossible to get this point across because people are too busy buying Nike trainers.

Fuzzy12
07-14-14, 07:39 AM
we all need someone to tell us what to do?

like hitler, manson....

No but you need someone to coordinate, organise, structure and well, manage both the work and the work force. Much like a conductor in an orchestra.

Fuzzy12
07-14-14, 07:42 AM
Your goal is to be better.
Not to be better than ... ...



I absolutely love this and it is surprising how many people seem to be just interested in being better than others rather than in just being good or in continuously improving.

Stevuke79
07-14-14, 11:13 AM
:-)

There are plenty of examples of people switching from public to private and from private to public sector.
I've done it.

It's a little bit peculiar to make the comment that narcissist/psychopaths dominate in public sector but not in private sector.

Maybe it's not true any more - but previously it was considered that the money/power in the private sector was greater than in public sector ... ... and so surely it stands to reason that if
- that the private sector's where you'd find them.

You're mixing two different things. Avoiding responsibility and narcissism.

The ability to get very far ahead by being a narcissist and avoiding responsibility is strictly in the public sector. As far as the reference to "The Office", that show is frequently complimented for being VERY realistic. Michael Scott is clearly a narcissist who avoids responsibility - and he was a low level middle manager. There are many jokes about how little he earns, the best sales people made a lot more than him, and he earned only slightly more than the foreman of the warehouse.

Narcissistic traits will get you ahead in the private sector too, but you have to be an effective narcissist. You have to earn your keep - politics (where narcissism helps) isn't nearly enough on it's own once you're in upper management.

Stevuke79
07-14-14, 12:19 PM
There's a very real sense that there are 2 definitions for key ideas in this (thick) world and the world that human beings ought to have shaped by now.

There is no need for the term boss.
However - there will be a need for a teacher (guide) whose role it is to be surpassed.

The boss in the standard thicko workplace we're forced to endure seeks to suppress.

Surpassed -> leads to a better world.
Suppressed -> will tear this world apart.

Ultimately - the individual who seeks to be surpassed is operating under a social reward system.
The individual who seeks to suppress is operating under a selfish reward system.

I really do love finding points of agreement between myself and those with whom I disagree - though I'm sure I often make it hard to tell.

I don't love the term boss. I think it will become less of a "key term" in business in the future. I think it's centrality comes from the day of the corporation - and I think in the future the idea of a large "corporation" will become less and less central as "specialists" will be able to operate as small businesses with just a few key employees or partners, .. and everyone else working for them will be a contractor and entrepreneur in their own right. I like this idea - but I digress.

I don't like the term boss either, and I don't really feel that any "bosses" exist in my world. There are simply agreements between individuals. My clients want something from me, and they agree to pay me for it. I need other people to get the job done with me, and I pay them. If we must assign the term boss, and the clients are my boss too, then I have nearly 100 bosses which puts me at the bottom of the proverbial totem poll. I also have the most responsibility and the fewest people to defer it upon. But what YOU describe, a boss that avoids responsibility, ... this only makes sense for a boss who isn't a partner in the business but who reports to someone else who is either a partner or one step closer to a partner. This is where corporate politics come into play.

These many layers of management are a drawback of the large corporation and most of the advantages of these corporations don't exist anymore. (The ability to access functions like printing, billing, human resources, etc.. we have the technology to have this handled by a separate company/contractor/consultant). I think for most industries the small-business is the way of the future and the large corporation, with it's many layers of do-nothing managers will be a thing of the past. (Except in government and academics. These industries are inherently political.)

Lunacie
07-14-14, 02:46 PM
I don't love the term boss. I think it will become less of a "key term" in business in the future. I think it's centrality comes from the day of the corporation - and I think in the future the idea of a large "corporation" will become less and less central as "specialists" will be able to operate as small businesses with just a few key employees or partners, .. and everyone else working for them will be a contractor and entrepreneur in their own right. I like this idea - but I digress.



I am actually paid as an independent contractor, which means my employer does not keep out any money for taxes or health insurance. I am responsible for those things and I can't afford health insurance. Which sucks.

Stevuke79
07-14-14, 02:52 PM
That definitely does suck Lunacie. It sounds like he's only offering you a position that forces you to accept a loop hole where he doesn't have to provide insurance. If you're an independent contractor, have you thought about taking on other clients? In other words, doing what you do for more than one client? I know I'm going off topic.

Lunacie
07-14-14, 03:02 PM
That definitely does suck Lunacie. It sounds like he's only offering you a position that forces you to accept a loop hole where he doesn't have to provide insurance. If you're an independent contractor, have you thought about taking on other clients? In other words, doing what you do for more than one client? I know I'm going off topic.

I don't know why other than it's a really small business ...
a beauty salon with 4 full time cosmetologists and 1 part time massage therapist.

Yes, I've thought about looking for other jobs,
hoping that at some point I won't be so needed to help with my autistic granddaughter,
but so far it can't be done.

Stevuke79
07-14-14, 03:55 PM
I don't know why other than it's a really small business ...

If I'm understanding correctly, the "why" is simple. He's doing it to reduce his cost of employing you.

SB_UK
07-14-14, 04:28 PM
The modern office rewards narcissists and psychopaths, say scientists


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269154/Horrible-bosses-New-study-shows-modern-offices-reward-narcissism-psychopathic-behaviour.html#ixzz37Tc3q7ss

SB_UK
07-14-14, 04:29 PM
It's the Daily Mail - but redeemed by scientists say - and we all know that scientists say the trufe - word !

Lunacie
07-14-14, 06:11 PM
If I'm understanding correctly, the "why" is simple. He's doing it to reduce his cost of employing you.

It's a she, and while I haven't checked recently I think I'm getting paid more than most cleaners in my area.
I just don't get enough hours for that wage to really add up. $16 an hour/4 hours a week.

Stevuke79
07-14-14, 06:26 PM
Ok, got it. Btw - if there's a point here I'm missing here, feel free to grab me by the neck and rub my nose in it .. sometimes that works for my wife. otherwise I'll just sit here and nod... I'm pretty thick sometimes,.. nodding is my "safety".

ruby.149.42
07-14-14, 09:46 PM
.. key point: many ways to cook a boss and to call all of them lazy psychos is a tad harsh I reckon. MANY of them are .. but certainly not all.

Some people strive towards "the boss realm" (Stream 1 : danger Will Robinson, watch with caution), and some people get promoted into management stream because they are good at their jobs (Stream 2) .. potentially 2 very different streams. Personally, I was once promoted into being a "boss" and loathed it, people management not my thing at all, leave me at my desk to do my job please, never done it since.


Narcissists gravitate to positions that can feed their hunger for power and status, said Mr Gimso.

= Stream 1

I don't love the term boss. I think it will become less of a "key term" in business in the future. I think it's centrality comes from the day of the corporation - and I think in the future the idea of a large "corporation" will become less and less central as "specialists" will be able to operate as small businesses with just a few key employees or partners, .. and everyone else working for them will be a contractor and entrepreneur in their own right. I like this idea - but I digress.

I would love to see the end of the large corporation. I'd love to see the end of fidicuary duty .. I'd love to see the end of MBA's and management consulting firms. Take out those 4 and Stream 1 may take a bit of a kicking.

A long time ago, for my sins, I once worked for one of the "Big 5" consulting firms and I would say a good 90% of the then-partners would tick most of the boxes of NPD criteria as per DSM-IV (http://www.behavenet.com/node/21653) (haven't seen DSM-5 yet). I never considered them in terms of any DSM criteria at the time, I just thought most of them were all selfish, nasty arrogant a$$holes. They have to be, otherwise they'd never make partner. Each year, new batchs of starry-eyed freshly-minted MBA's start out as trainee consultants. Same path each time: large % wouldn't survive the first year (16+ hr days (sleeping under desks reasonably common) and getting regularly shamed, bullied and verbally abused - always several leaving with nervous breakdowns) .. those that remained .. well it's survival of the "fittest" and you can guess the "fit". All with the big $$$$$ in their eyes and partner-status firmly in their goals (that would be Stream 1). There were some exceptions but you have to be a ruthless and self-absorbed to succeed in those places .. and given the business ethics that you're going to be aligning with (make maximum bucks with zero ethics), it would be impossible any other way.

If you use Quora, this (http://www.quora.com/Consulting/What-is-it-like-to-be-a-partner-at-a-Big-5-consulting-firm)sums up partner life right from horses mouth.

The fact that these type of organisations are considered the cream of top jobs for graduates is what worries me. But if we have a system where graduates come out with massive amounts of student debt, that is going to be driving job "choice" when they get out.

Where I would disagree (SB) however, is that they did work very hard. They're not sleeping under their desks at partner level but they're still pulling 12 hours days, mostly playing politics, schmoozing (so much schmoozing) and telling other people what to do but still lots of strategic, analytical work (how to smash the competition and drive as much "efficiency" possible aka smash supply chains until the few remaining players are entirely beholden to you).


The number of times that I've heard about reviewers scooping the research of science they're reviewing or scientists stealing ideas which're presented in grant proposals for them to review - stealing the idea and rejecting the grant proposal or senior members of scientific labs putting postdocs in highly speculative research as cannon fodder ie if it comes off (unlikely) the lab head will get much prestige - but if not the postdoc will not have their grant renewed

- and science, one would think, would be better than the average dumbo legal/financial office.



That makes me want to cry I think. I've come across massive unscrupulous ego in the psych academia world .. but rejecting and nicking research ideas .. yup, I'm gonna cry.



The reward system one *chooses* is influenced by the life one leads.

It's not a choice one makes explicitly - but a choice one makes by the life one leads.



I don't reckon most people "choose" at all. They come out of that education production line with tons of debt and choose the most lucrative gig they can land to pay it off. Their head never gets a chance to get above the parapet and they just get suckered into greed and consumption. Some of them still have their young idealistic ideas in their minds and reckon they'll get back to them once they pay off the debt. But then they get suckered into corporate and expensive pursuits, and big mortgages and kids and private school fees and those ideals wither away.


Choose addiction (money/power)
or
what's right

- and whichever of these paths one chooses to live one's life
- will determine whether the individual stands a chance of {completing mind,wisdom,gaining freedom,actually becoming alive,losing addictive propensity,living healthily,becoming enlightened,gaining free will ... ... ...


Same drum again: I don't think questioning status quo and choice is available for most. You make it sound as if most people have actually sat down and thought about it whereas I don't reckon it's come up on their radar at all. They're raised not to think about it and not to question. If they sell it at KMart or ASDA it must be good for you .. the abattoir is hidden away .. the highest performing psychs grads are head-hunted by ad firms to manipulate people into thinking they're not good enough .. people are running too fast on the treadmill and life has been set up to steer people away from thought. All the same stuff.

No but you need someone to coordinate, organise, structure and well, manage both the work and the work force. Much like a conductor in an orchestra.

Agree - like the conductor analogy - each player proficient in their own field. Just don't give the conductor more kudos than the instrumentalists - all take your bows at the same time (not how it currently stands - conductor always gets the boquet and not the players).

SB_UK
07-15-14, 03:23 AM
Radio 4 Thought for the day
Dean Trinity College, Cambridge

Augustine had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a higher position of authority because he realised the greater responsibility which came with the position.

note - compatibility between morality (Augustine) and anarchy (reflex opposition towards taking a position in a hierarchy/supporting any human hierarchy).

If people actually realised the greater responsibility which came with higher authority - they wouldn't want it.

But for the most part in this dumbo world - people want higher authority in order to avoid work and feed a material world (money,power) addiction.

Not too sure why this is news to anybody.

Augustine was spot on - realise the responsibility which comes with authority and who'd want it - if you're in charge of people - you HAVE to make sure that you make their lives better (and the lives of all people better ie you don't want to make your team better at the cost of other teams in other organizations)

- let's say that I've a great idea which brings much money to my small team and sends a large team in a competitor organization into poverty
- well that's (and simply) WRONG

- and if people think that it's just about making more money than other people (as a sign of success)

- then we're simply back to the battle between material world desire (love of money/power) versus morality.

IE - a core difference in reward systems (2 CONFLICTING REWARD SYSTEMS) where love of money/power is the reward system which human beings don't become properly human until transcended.

-*-

I'm trying to explain that there're 2 motivations.

Attempt to do what's right (requiring that you know what's right) and you will escape the primitive reward system.
Don't and you won't.

Forget any aspect of any academic realm - it's the individual's motivation (ie reward system) in development/in use which is ALL important.

Do I have your best interests at heart (as well as my own) ?
or
Do I have my own best interests at heart (regardless of your own) ?

Noting that my best interests are realised through striving towards what is in your best interests - using full logic; I can't argue the opposite line - it's just plain dumb to try and operate without consideration of the needs of the other 10 billion people on the planet.

SB_UK
07-15-14, 03:45 AM
choice

I've had this problem also.

A choice doesn't actually need to be explicitly made to be a choice ... ... it's a real important point - because it shows that society can 'force' a choice without people realising they're choosing - just by virtue of the choice not being offered - ie effectively no choice (shrouding the existence of choice) in a choice -- is still a choice though not one which people one can explicitly make.

It's impossible to work for other people if we're forced to work to the detriment (anything and everything to do with money) of all other people.

So if society closes off a left turn at a T-junction then we can only turn right ... ... but the all important point is that there's a temporary barrier in place which can just as easily be removed.

So - take a look at the rules of money/law - and we've a clear temporary barrier which human beings (ruling classes) have put in place to maintain wealth ... ... all we need do is eliminate money and the temporary barrier is removed - and we get to choose what :-) is 'right' ... ... ...

http://www.taharkabrothers.com/uploads/1/3/2/7/13279118/124646_orig.jpg

Bethylphenidate
07-30-14, 09:07 AM
I'm sure there are a lot of people with psychopathy and NPD in very high positions. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm not sure that's a good thing, lol, but I 'get' it.

(Please note I never said "everyone" or "all" or "always.")

Corina86
07-30-14, 10:50 AM
We need a definition of success which is not limited to the acquisition of money and power.

Luckily there is one - and the great religions merge in pointing us towards escaping the love/desire of money and power as the only worthy goal for man.

So - there's the answer.

Fast-track enlightenment.

Not becoming waylaid climbing the property, workplace, social ladders
- for all of that is complete nonsense.


The fact that you enjoy walking with your dog is great and pretty much all of us would rather be talking a stroll than working, but there's no way anybody is gonna pay us to walk, hike, watch tv, sit at the pub etc. Even if we start our own companies or live off agriculture or hunting, we need to do something productive to make a living.

If society (or nature or anybody) is willing to reward you with means of survival for doing something you like, then you're lucky. If not, you need to sacrifice your free-time in order to make a living- this is where ADHD-ers have it hard: no matter how big the long-term reward, we're having a hard time making an effort now.Weather or not we have bosses or we are bosses or we live in a society where everyone is equal (I disagree that this type of society would work for humans, but that's another issue) is irrelevant; we all need to make an effort to produce what we need for survival or trade. And if we want a high life-standard (good food, safety, utilities, medical care, TV, Internet- Westerners take them for granted, but they are still a luxury in most of the world) than we need to work hard. Imo this is the part that sucks and the part that makes ADHD suck, not the part where there's a dude/lady telling me what to do from time to time.

Regarding bosses being narcissists, I disagree. More cold-heart-ed, less emotional, with higher self-esteem- probably. Some have mental disorders, but most are normal people. I worked in 3 companies: in 2 I had great bosses, intelligent and nice towards their employees, and in 1 there were all a bunch of crazy b****es/ a- holes. It depends on the companies culture, the top-management, the field and simple luck.

Btw, I wouldn't want my boss's position since I could never handle that much work, no matter what anyone would pay me!