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

[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?

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.

So by saying competitiveness is one very powerful and pervasive facet of our nature makes me worthy or your mockery? given that you rebuke me by explaining (in nothing even resembling a condescending manner) that "Human beings are competitive by nature"

Yeah, fuck me, have I got egg on my stupid face now

[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.

So by saying competitiveness is one very powerful and pervasive facet of our nature makes me worthy or your mockery? given that you rebuke me by explaining (in nothing even resembling a condescending manner) that "Human beings are competitive by nature"

Yeah, fuck me, have I got egg on my stupid face now

Wait, that was mockery?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To be completely clear, what I am objecting to is the false typification of "human nature".

[P3nT4gR4m]

To be completely clear, what I am objecting to is the false typification of "human nature".

It's one facet. And you're right, other facets like cooperation can be encouraged or trained for or whatever but that's dealing with the wrong end of the problem. Putting  band aid on it. Captain fuckhead doesn't go away. It's still programmed in there waiting for an opportunity to strike. It might not be typical but there does seem to be rather a lot of it about.

[Salty]

To some, many perhaps, cultures cooperation comes quite easily.

We base much of our thoughts on how the brain is wired on white, middle-to-upper class college students. They most frequently show a desire to only acquire gain at the expense of others.

It is based off this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

Other cultures react to this game in substantially varied ways, showing a very distinct and separate neurological wiring which we often take for granted as universal in humans. But we see it that way because economists want us to see it that way, and because it's difficult to see past the culture we have stamped onto the rest of the world at every opportunity.

[Salty]

We have all been conditioned to think that people are inherently the mindless, crazed blood ape seeking for ourselves only at the cost of others. And we can often be, but it is not the default state.

For white people it certainly seems to be. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To be completely clear, what I am objecting to is the false typification of "human nature".

It's one facet. And you're right, other facets like cooperation can be encouraged or trained for or whatever but that's dealing with the wrong end of the problem. Putting  band aid on it. Captain fuckhead doesn't go away. It's still programmed in there waiting for an opportunity to strike. It might not be typical but there does seem to be rather a lot of it about.

What's the right end of the problem? You seem bound and determined to buy into the "hardwired for zero-sum games" line, which is pure and utter bullshit.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To some, many perhaps, cultures cooperation comes quite easily.

We base much of our thoughts on how the brain is wired on white, middle-to-upper class college students. They most frequently show a desire to only acquire gain at the expense of others.

It is based off this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

Other cultures react to this game in substantially varied ways, showing a very distinct and separate neurological wiring which we often take for granted as universal in humans. But we see it that way because economists want us to see it that way, and because it's difficult to see past the culture we have stamped onto the rest of the world at every opportunity.

Thank you, Alty. That's what I was trying to point out.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There's a WHOLE THREAD about it somewhere around here.

[Trivial]

Wonder if some sort of Randian worship is driving my company to think that it can cut its way to success. Yes there was an excess of people at one point (due to really weird ass hiring practices) , but you can only cut so much fat till you hit muscle and bone.

[P3nT4gR4m]

To be completely clear, what I am objecting to is the false typification of "human nature".

It's one facet. And you're right, other facets like cooperation can be encouraged or trained for or whatever but that's dealing with the wrong end of the problem. Putting  band aid on it. Captain fuckhead doesn't go away. It's still programmed in there waiting for an opportunity to strike. It might not be typical but there does seem to be rather a lot of it about.

What's the right end of the problem? You seem bound and determined to buy into the "hardwired for zero-sum games" line, which is pure and utter bullshit.

You seem to be unable to see it, which is kinda puzzling me.

*ETA* Okay, I think I might have it - "hardwired" not a word I would have initially chosen. "programmed" would be more my take. We learn different logic systems and one of them is zero sum. Once we have internalised this, it's in there and it can be recalled at any time. Quite often, in the real world, we can see this game being played out.

It's not hardwired, in the sense that it happens all the time or that everything is always filtered through this process but it can and does happen. And there's vast scope for positive reinforcement, given that (hate to admit it) it can and does really fucking work, albeit for a somewhat myopic definition of "works"

My point is that we are evolved from a competitive environment. I think the tendency came about before we had a word for it, before we even had language. It's built into our instincts. Trying to apply intellectual pressure to something buried deeper than the superficial societal level is what I mean by "band-aid".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To be completely clear, what I am objecting to is the false typification of "human nature".

It's one facet. And you're right, other facets like cooperation can be encouraged or trained for or whatever but that's dealing with the wrong end of the problem. Putting  band aid on it. Captain fuckhead doesn't go away. It's still programmed in there waiting for an opportunity to strike. It might not be typical but there does seem to be rather a lot of it about.

What's the right end of the problem? You seem bound and determined to buy into the "hardwired for zero-sum games" line, which is pure and utter bullshit.

You seem to be unable to see it, which is kinda puzzling me.

[Salty]

When you say, "Human beings are hardwired for X." where does that assumption come from?

Have we opened and examined and gained a comprehensive understanding of the human brain on ever continent, from every subculture and mapped it out, and said, "By Jove, they are all the same!"

No. We haven't. And even if there were such a program, our understanding of how the brain's architecture tanslates into activity is ham-fisted at best. Shit, almost everybody still uses the term "left-brained" and "right-brained" which are stupidly innaccruate.

We, you, gain an understanding of how the brain is "hardwired", also a ham-fisted approach to how the brain functions, is based on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

Which has only been recently introduced to indiginous people of cultures, and other brown people far removed from the one we share.

The notion that zerosum is the default state of ALL human desire is fallacious and perpetuates much of he fuckery found in the financial fuckery thread.

Don't you suppose bankers have a strong interest in convicing you the ENTIRE WORLD is just like them?

You talk about cellular processes. Yes, conflict is important to the growth of life, but so is diversity. It takes all sorts to make a world.

[Salty]

It's actually pretty distrurbing that the sense of what humans are "hardwired" for that's been at home in my brain for so long is a pure product of imperialistic greed.

Makes me kind of mad. It also makes me more at ease when not getting along with others, and it makes me much kinder.

[Pæs]

BUT MR. ALTY, IF THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR ME TO RELY ON OTHER HUMANS, HOW CAN I JUSTIFY THE RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM I HAVE DEVELOPED TO COPE WITH THE PERCEIVED SELFISHNESS OF MAN?