CEO follows Ayn Rand's advice, mysteriously fails as businessman

[Junkenstein]

This is what happens when you base your business plan on a WORK OF UTOPIAN FICTION WRITTEN BY A PERSON WHO HASN'T GOT A SINGLE CLUE ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS.

It doesn't even sound like a good idea in writing. It's like basing a business plan on Watership Down.

Isn't it amazing that you can treat people right and make money, but when you treat them badly, you eventually wind up losing your ass?

And isn't it amazing that this seems to be viewed as a new discovery every 30 years or so, and then is usually promptly ignored?

People seem hardwired for zero-sum games. 'If somebody isn't losing I couldn't possibly be winning.'.
The only way to feel safe about your own good fortune is to beat some other people down, otherwise it feels like the universe is making a mistake that will be corrected as soon as She notices. Oh Yes! Corrected with a Vengeance!

The bold, very much so. There's probably a debate to be had nature/nurture wise considering most games played by kids are competitive rather than co-operative. "I win - You also win  - yay" isn't as appealing as rubbing someone's face in how much better at X you are. Repeated lessons about winning/losing well feature heavily and set you up for the idea that the world is competitive and against you fundamentally.

I've got other things rattling round about potential survival traits and such and seem to recall a Sapolsky lecture talking about this in some regard. That's fuzzy though.

[Pæs]

NO, SCREW YOU GUYS. WE ARE COMPETING FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BREED. IF WE BOTH WIN - AT ANYTHING - YOUR GENETIC LEGACY MIGHT COMPETE WITH MINE IN FUTURE.

GET OFF MY ROCK.

[P3nT4gR4m]

This is what happens when you base your business plan on a WORK OF UTOPIAN FICTION WRITTEN BY A PERSON WHO HASN'T GOT A SINGLE CLUE ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS.

It doesn't even sound like a good idea in writing. It's like basing a business plan on Watership Down.

Isn't it amazing that you can treat people right and make money, but when you treat them badly, you eventually wind up losing your ass?

And isn't it amazing that this seems to be viewed as a new discovery every 30 years or so, and then is usually promptly ignored?

People seem hardwired for zero-sum games. 'If somebody isn't losing I couldn't possibly be winning.'.
The only way to feel safe about your own good fortune is to beat some other people down, otherwise it feels like the universe is making a mistake that will be corrected as soon as She notices. Oh Yes! Corrected with a Vengeance!

The bold, very much so. There's probably a debate to be had nature/nurture wise considering most games played by kids are competitive rather than co-operative. "I win - You also win  - yay" isn't as appealing as rubbing someone's face in how much better at X you are. Repeated lessons about winning/losing well feature heavily and set you up for the idea that the world is competitive and against you fundamentally.

I've got other things rattling round about potential survival traits and such and seem to recall a Sapolsky lecture talking about this in some regard. That's fuzzy though.

I suspect it's a fundamental mechanic of DNA (possibly even chemistry itself) It started with single celled organisms and seems to have pretty much carried through. What's evolution if it isn't an arms race?

[Reginald Ret]

This is what happens when you base your business plan on a WORK OF UTOPIAN FICTION WRITTEN BY A PERSON WHO HASN'T GOT A SINGLE CLUE ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS.

It doesn't even sound like a good idea in writing. It's like basing a business plan on Watership Down.

Isn't it amazing that you can treat people right and make money, but when you treat them badly, you eventually wind up losing your ass?

And isn't it amazing that this seems to be viewed as a new discovery every 30 years or so, and then is usually promptly ignored?

People seem hardwired for zero-sum games. 'If somebody isn't losing I couldn't possibly be winning.'.
The only way to feel safe about your own good fortune is to beat some other people down, otherwise it feels like the universe is making a mistake that will be corrected as soon as She notices. Oh Yes! Corrected with a Vengeance!

The bold, very much so. There's probably a debate to be had nature/nurture wise considering most games played by kids are competitive rather than co-operative. "I win - You also win  - yay" isn't as appealing as rubbing someone's face in how much better at X you are. Repeated lessons about winning/losing well feature heavily and set you up for the idea that the world is competitive and against you fundamentally.

I've got other things rattling round about potential survival traits and such and seem to recall a Sapolsky lecture talking about this in some regard. That's fuzzy though.

I suspect it's a fundamental mechanic of DNA (possibly even chemistry itself) It started with single celled organisms and seems to have pretty much carried through. What's evolution if it isn't an arms race?

DNA is surprisingly stupid and malleable. It is possible to design the incentives in your society to promote cooperation. It is difficult and hard though. True success requires extensive conditioning of the youth in exactly the opposite direction it is being done now.

[Ben Shapiro]

WAIT WAIT YOU'RE TELLING ME I CAN'T RUN A BUSINESS TAKING A SHIT ON OTHERS??!!??!!
FUCK YOU OBAMA!

The free maket will save him. It always does. Look how the free market saved all the homeless people in this nation.

[The Johnny]

WAIT WAIT YOU'RE TELLING ME I CAN'T RUN A BUSINESS TAKING A SHIT ON OTHERS??!!??!!
FUCK YOU OBAMA!

The free maket will save him. It always does. Look how the free market saved all the homeless people in this nation.

Those are just lazy (non) people! (alternate explanation: they are weak in our social darwinism utopia and deserve to starve)

[P3nT4gR4m]

This is what happens when you base your business plan on a WORK OF UTOPIAN FICTION WRITTEN BY A PERSON WHO HASN'T GOT A SINGLE CLUE ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS.

It doesn't even sound like a good idea in writing. It's like basing a business plan on Watership Down.

Isn't it amazing that you can treat people right and make money, but when you treat them badly, you eventually wind up losing your ass?

And isn't it amazing that this seems to be viewed as a new discovery every 30 years or so, and then is usually promptly ignored?

People seem hardwired for zero-sum games. 'If somebody isn't losing I couldn't possibly be winning.'.
The only way to feel safe about your own good fortune is to beat some other people down, otherwise it feels like the universe is making a mistake that will be corrected as soon as She notices. Oh Yes! Corrected with a Vengeance!

The bold, very much so. There's probably a debate to be had nature/nurture wise considering most games played by kids are competitive rather than co-operative. "I win - You also win  - yay" isn't as appealing as rubbing someone's face in how much better at X you are. Repeated lessons about winning/losing well feature heavily and set you up for the idea that the world is competitive and against you fundamentally.

I've got other things rattling round about potential survival traits and such and seem to recall a Sapolsky lecture talking about this in some regard. That's fuzzy though.

I suspect it's a fundamental mechanic of DNA (possibly even chemistry itself) It started with single celled organisms and seems to have pretty much carried through. What's evolution if it isn't an arms race?

DNA is surprisingly stupid and malleable. It is possible to design the incentives in your society to promote cooperation. It is difficult and hard though. True success requires extensive conditioning of the youth in exactly the opposite direction it is being done now.

Cooperation is only plausible if we're cooperating against something (eg. hunting, warfare) and it's a higher function that will be overridden by the base imperative to fuck over for profit at the earliest available opportunity. In the big picture of modern life it makes much more sense to cooperate but that's an abstract logical concept that biology itself is incapable of understanding. Thus we find our rational goals and ambition at loggerheads with our genetic code.

I'm pretty sure we'll fix it eventually but in the meantime - watch your back.

[Reginald Ret]

This is what happens when you base your business plan on a WORK OF UTOPIAN FICTION WRITTEN BY A PERSON WHO HASN'T GOT A SINGLE CLUE ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS.

It doesn't even sound like a good idea in writing. It's like basing a business plan on Watership Down.

Isn't it amazing that you can treat people right and make money, but when you treat them badly, you eventually wind up losing your ass?

And isn't it amazing that this seems to be viewed as a new discovery every 30 years or so, and then is usually promptly ignored?

People seem hardwired for zero-sum games. 'If somebody isn't losing I couldn't possibly be winning.'.
The only way to feel safe about your own good fortune is to beat some other people down, otherwise it feels like the universe is making a mistake that will be corrected as soon as She notices. Oh Yes! Corrected with a Vengeance!

The bold, very much so. There's probably a debate to be had nature/nurture wise considering most games played by kids are competitive rather than co-operative. "I win - You also win  - yay" isn't as appealing as rubbing someone's face in how much better at X you are. Repeated lessons about winning/losing well feature heavily and set you up for the idea that the world is competitive and against you fundamentally.

I've got other things rattling round about potential survival traits and such and seem to recall a Sapolsky lecture talking about this in some regard. That's fuzzy though.

I suspect it's a fundamental mechanic of DNA (possibly even chemistry itself) It started with single celled organisms and seems to have pretty much carried through. What's evolution if it isn't an arms race?

DNA is surprisingly stupid and malleable. It is possible to design the incentives in your society to promote cooperation. It is difficult and hard though. True success requires extensive conditioning of the youth in exactly the opposite direction it is being done now.

Cooperation is only plausible if we're cooperating against something (eg. hunting, warfare) and it's a higher function that will be overridden by the base imperative to fuck over for profit at the earliest available opportunity. In the big picture of modern life it makes much more sense to cooperate but that's an abstract logical concept that biology itself is incapable of understanding. Thus we find our rational goals and ambition at loggerheads with our genetic code.

I'm pretty sure we'll fix it eventually but in the meantime - watch your back.

As i said, DNA is stupid. Just trick it into thinking there is an enemy or something. Enemies can even be abstract concepts (proof: the war on terror) so i can see several avenues for hacking society to be less selfdestructive. Step one will be mocking Ayn Rand of course.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I'd rather fix the bug. Hopefully it'll be one of the primary objectives of Evolution 2.0

[Reginald Ret]

I'd rather fix the bug. Hopefully it'll be one of the primary objectives of Evolution 2.0

Hmm, on the giving hand I am all for messing with our genome, on the taking hand I don't think that would be as easily achieved in a short timespan.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This is what happens when you base your business plan on a WORK OF UTOPIAN FICTION WRITTEN BY A PERSON WHO HASN'T GOT A SINGLE CLUE ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS.

It doesn't even sound like a good idea in writing. It's like basing a business plan on Watership Down.

Isn't it amazing that you can treat people right and make money, but when you treat them badly, you eventually wind up losing your ass?

And isn't it amazing that this seems to be viewed as a new discovery every 30 years or so, and then is usually promptly ignored?

People seem hardwired for zero-sum games. 'If somebody isn't losing I couldn't possibly be winning.'.
The only way to feel safe about your own good fortune is to beat some other people down, otherwise it feels like the universe is making a mistake that will be corrected as soon as She notices. Oh Yes! Corrected with a Vengeance!

This is actually not at all, even a little bit true. You are speaking about an entire species through the filter of Western colonialism, which has arguably spawned the most successful culture on earth by virtue of being the most aggressive, but which, like an aggressive mold, overcame countless other more cooperative (but no less human) cultures that were also entirely successful outside of the context of colonial conquest. Many cultures still exist (as well as many more which are now extinct) that value the good of the community over the good of the individual.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This is what happens when you base your business plan on a WORK OF UTOPIAN FICTION WRITTEN BY A PERSON WHO HASN'T GOT A SINGLE CLUE ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS.

It doesn't even sound like a good idea in writing. It's like basing a business plan on Watership Down.

Isn't it amazing that you can treat people right and make money, but when you treat them badly, you eventually wind up losing your ass?

And isn't it amazing that this seems to be viewed as a new discovery every 30 years or so, and then is usually promptly ignored?

People seem hardwired for zero-sum games. 'If somebody isn't losing I couldn't possibly be winning.'.
The only way to feel safe about your own good fortune is to beat some other people down, otherwise it feels like the universe is making a mistake that will be corrected as soon as She notices. Oh Yes! Corrected with a Vengeance!

The bold, very much so. There's probably a debate to be had nature/nurture wise considering most games played by kids are competitive rather than co-operative. "I win - You also win  - yay" isn't as appealing as rubbing someone's face in how much better at X you are. Repeated lessons about winning/losing well feature heavily and set you up for the idea that the world is competitive and against you fundamentally.

I've got other things rattling round about potential survival traits and such and seem to recall a Sapolsky lecture talking about this in some regard. That's fuzzy though.

I suspect it's a fundamental mechanic of DNA (possibly even chemistry itself) It started with single celled organisms and seems to have pretty much carried through. What's evolution if it isn't an arms race?

Except for the fact that it's COMPLETELY WRONG and you guys are talking our of your asses, sure.

Human beings are not completely peaceful. Few species are, if any are. Human beings are competitive by nature, and status-seekers by nature. But human beings are ALSO cooperative by nature. How these natural driving components of our species are balanced is malleable and cultural.

[Reginald Ret]

This is what happens when you base your business plan on a WORK OF UTOPIAN FICTION WRITTEN BY A PERSON WHO HASN'T GOT A SINGLE CLUE ABOUT RUNNING A BUSINESS.

It doesn't even sound like a good idea in writing. It's like basing a business plan on Watership Down.

Isn't it amazing that you can treat people right and make money, but when you treat them badly, you eventually wind up losing your ass?

And isn't it amazing that this seems to be viewed as a new discovery every 30 years or so, and then is usually promptly ignored?

People seem hardwired for zero-sum games. 'If somebody isn't losing I couldn't possibly be winning.'.
The only way to feel safe about your own good fortune is to beat some other people down, otherwise it feels like the universe is making a mistake that will be corrected as soon as She notices. Oh Yes! Corrected with a Vengeance!

This is actually not at all, even a little bit true. You are speaking about an entire species through the filter of Western colonialism, which has arguably spawned the most successful culture on earth by virtue of being the most aggressive, but which, like an aggressive mold, overcame countless other more cooperative (but no less human) cultures that were also entirely successful outside of the context of colonial conquest. Many cultures still exist (as well as many more which are now extinct) that value the good of the community over the good of the individual.

Alright, so the potential for cooperation exists.

Now, how do we go about changing society to promote cooperation. What behaviour do we need to strengthen and how, what behavioural reinforcements need to dissapear? (example: Mass Media and it's glorificating of violence while it pacifies the watchers)

[Pergamos]

To be fair, I'm trying to think of a worse book than Rand's to base a business on.

I'm struggling.

The Gor books

[Pergamos]

infusing competition inside a corporation is about as silly as putting it inside a body.  From a genetic standpoint the stupidity of this is obvious.