Salon has an interesting profile on Eddie Lampert, the CEO of Sears and creator of " a kind of Lord of the Flies death match" between Sears managers to boost productivity.
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_rand_loving_ceo_destroys_his_empire_partner/
QuoteAs his company was descending into Randian mayhem, Lampert continued to cheerfully inform stockholders that his revolutionary ideas would soon produce earth-shattering results. Reality: Sears has lost half its value in five years. Since 2010, Sears has closed more than half of its stores. Sears Holdings is financially distressed and Lampert's own hedge fund has reduced its stake in the company. The Sears store in Oakland, California, open for business with boarded-up windows, has even been cited for urban blight.
Oh that's beautiful.
Oh man I love this! Fucken economist/business school idiots finally got an example to follow!
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. :lol:
It doesn't even sound like a good idea in writing. It's like basing a business plan on Watership Down.
Hey hey hey now, hold on a minute.
There are much worse books to base your business model on than "Watership Down".
To be fair, I'm trying to think of a worse book than Rand's to base a business on.
I'm struggling.
Twilight. Mein Kampf. Org's Odyssey. A Million Little Pieces.
Quote from: Cain on February 18, 2014, 03:35:49 PM
Hey hey hey now, hold on a minute.
There are much worse books to base your business model on than "Watership Down".
:lulz:
Quote from: Cain on February 18, 2014, 03:35:49 PM
Hey hey hey now, hold on a minute.
There are much worse books to base your business model on than "Watership Down".
:mittens:
Quote from: Cain on February 18, 2014, 04:04:01 PM
Twilight. Mein Kampf. Org's Odyssey. A Million Little Pieces.
I'm not sure about that. The business practices extolled in Mein Kampf worked for a given value of "worked". A million little pieces is based on the most effective buisiness practice of the past ??? years - Lying your ass off.
So for those reasons alone I'd have to rate them objectively better business books than Rand's.
Twilight, while also terrible invokes the marketing magic that is "Sparkly shit sells" so that probably means it's better than Rand too.
Quote from: Cain on February 18, 2014, 03:35:49 PM
Hey hey hey now, hold on a minute.
There are much worse books to base your business model on than "Watership Down".
I'm pretty sure that's what my pizzeria was modeled on and it stayed afloat for 4 years with WAY less capital loss than Sears.
See?
Which also, incidentally, makes you far more qualified to be the CEO of Sears as well. Just mentioning, since I think there may be a job going there soon...
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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!
Quote from: :regret: on February 19, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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 seems to be especially true in the United States.
Quote from: :regret: on February 19, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 19, 2014, 09:22:20 PM
Quote from: :regret: on February 19, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 20, 2014, 03:23:44 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 19, 2014, 09:22:20 PM
Quote from: :regret: on February 19, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: /b/earman on February 21, 2014, 12:42:50 AM
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)
Quote from: :regret: on February 20, 2014, 10:49:12 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 20, 2014, 03:23:44 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 19, 2014, 09:22:20 PM
Quote from: :regret: on February 19, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 21, 2014, 10:41:48 AM
Quote from: :regret: on February 20, 2014, 10:49:12 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 20, 2014, 03:23:44 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 19, 2014, 09:22:20 PM
Quote from: :regret: on February 19, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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.
I'd rather fix the bug. Hopefully it'll be one of the primary objectives of Evolution 2.0
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 21, 2014, 03:02:02 PM
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.
Quote from: :regret: on February 19, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 20, 2014, 03:23:44 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 19, 2014, 09:22:20 PM
Quote from: :regret: on February 19, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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. :lulz:
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.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 22, 2014, 12:07:42 AM
Quote from: :regret: on February 19, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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)
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 18, 2014, 03:44:30 PM
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
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.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 22, 2014, 12:12:16 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 20, 2014, 03:23:44 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 19, 2014, 09:22:20 PM
Quote from: :regret: on February 19, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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. :lulz:
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 :oops:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 22, 2014, 02:58:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 22, 2014, 12:12:16 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 20, 2014, 03:23:44 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 19, 2014, 09:22:20 PM
Quote from: :regret: on February 19, 2014, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on February 19, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 18, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
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. :lol:
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. :lulz:
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 :oops:
Wait, that was mockery?
To be completely clear, what I am objecting to is the false typification of "human nature".
Quote from: Nigel on February 23, 2014, 06:09:21 AM
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.
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.
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. :lol:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 23, 2014, 10:24:56 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 23, 2014, 06:09:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Alty on February 23, 2014, 10:59:29 AM
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.
There's a WHOLE THREAD about it somewhere around here.
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.
Quote from: Nigel on February 23, 2014, 04:32:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 23, 2014, 10:24:56 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 23, 2014, 06:09:21 AM
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".
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 23, 2014, 06:33:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 23, 2014, 04:32:46 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 23, 2014, 10:24:56 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 23, 2014, 06:09:21 AM
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.
:roll:
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: Alty on February 23, 2014, 07:13:50 PM
When you say, "Human beings are hadwired 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.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YMOXQUoxk08/TRizwsRgg5I/AAAAAAAAFaQ/TwQ2b-6ib5Q/s1600/Kitten%2BMittens.1.jpg)
Alty wins thread.
Quote from: Pæs on February 23, 2014, 08:29:06 PM
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?
Plus a kitten for Paes.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LbEOZqOqjYs/TNbnIUs3PUI/AAAAAAAASWA/iprsKLVMJbM/s1600/kitten_wearing_sweater+via+tumblr_lbicmm003u1qe7t0vo1_500.jpg)
Quote from: Nigel on February 23, 2014, 04:37:32 PM
There's a WHOLE THREAD about it somewhere around here.
This one: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,36025.0.html
I remember because I bookmarked that Pacific Standard website.
Dawww, kitten mittens!
Quote from: Net on February 24, 2014, 03:18:05 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 23, 2014, 04:37:32 PM
There's a WHOLE THREAD about it somewhere around here.
This one: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,36025.0.html
I remember because I bookmarked that Pacific Standard website.
THANKS NET!
Hang on, i said:
QuotePeople seem hardwired for zero-sum games.
And that is what we were talking about. Seem =/= Are.
Anyway, it was a stupid way of putting it, so i'm not sure why I am posting this.
How about "Many people exhibit behaviour that is optimised for zero-sum games and this causes several problems."?
Quote from: :regret: on February 24, 2014, 12:32:40 PM
Hang on, i said:
QuotePeople seem hardwired for zero-sum games.
And that is what we were talking about. Seem =/= Are.
Anyway, it was a stupid way of putting it, so i'm not sure why I am posting this.
How about "Many people exhibit behaviour that is optimised for zero-sum games and this causes several problems."?
What I read in the first place but, y'know, it's much easier to tell someone they're wrongwrongWRONG than actually think about what someone is trying to communicate in the first place. Especially if your primary objective is the accusation of wrongness.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 23, 2014, 06:33:05 PM
*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.
I think if we combine this with Alty and Nigel's point about zero sum being a cultural thing, and is not immediately present in non-Western* cultures, it looks like we're all aiming in the same general direction. Nigel/Alty are correct that it is not a biological drive, P3nt is right that it is pretty well entrenched in the culture we're currently living in.
*Used as a really, really lazy stand in for the exact dominant culture we're discussing
I addressed the statement twice. The conversation about how people are "hardwired" was proceeding apace, so I repeated myself in stronger terms, saying that sure, Regret hit the nail on the head, except that it was wrong. Nobody wants to get called out for talking out of their asses, but it happens sometimes, just move the fuck on. The idea that people are hardwired for zero-sum games is not substantiated by anything other than Western-centric assumptions and projection, and there is ample evidence against it. Now, do you want to continue making this about "Nigel wasn't nice enough when she told me my bright idea was wrong", or do you want to talk about something productive and interesting?
For the record, P3nt, I didn't even bother going into detail about why what you said about DNA and single-celled organisms is stupid, but if you're really intent on flaring butthurt and how all Mean Mister Nigel wants to do is tell people they're wrong, I could.
That wasn't where I was going, tbh. I just thought you both made good points, and clarified them, and I wanted to say so.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2014, 04:25:56 PM
That wasn't where I was going, tbh. I just thought you both made good points, and clarified them, and I wanted to say so.
Sorry, I was responding to P3nt's post about how I was so focused on making his anus inflamed.
Heh. Ok, I think we got that sorted out.
Anyway.
So if the entrenched culture in which I live is running game rules based on Zero Sum, how the heck can it be changed? From a functional perspective, what's to be done?
I suppose it's like anything else, act local; if you can influence the people around you (your "tribe", or that trope about teh "50 people that make up your personal communuity") to be less dickish, at least part of your reality will be improved.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2014, 04:38:21 PM
Heh. Ok, I think we got that sorted out.
Anyway.
So if the entrenched culture in which I live is running game rules based on Zero Sum, how the heck can it be changed? From a functional perspective, what's to be done?
I suppose it's like anything else, act local; if you can influence the people around you (your "tribe", or that trope about teh "50 people that make up your personal communuity") to be less dickish, at least part of your reality will be improved.
Well, a starting point for most change is simply challenging the assumption that the status-quo reflects an inborn and fundamental law of human nature.
For example, women's place in the home, homosexuals in society, interracial marriage, the inferiority of people of color. Once the idea started getting around that maybe our social assumptions about how "natural" any of these things were might be foundless, things started shifting pretty rapidly.
Quote from: Nigel on February 24, 2014, 04:16:47 PMor do you want to talk about something productive and interesting?
Apologies, I'll try again..
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2014, 04:38:21 PM
Heh. Ok, I think we got that sorted out.
Anyway.
So if the entrenched culture in which I live is running game rules based on Zero Sum, how the heck can it be changed? From a functional perspective, what's to be done?
I suppose it's like anything else, act local; if you can influence the people around you (your "tribe", or that trope about teh "50 people that make up your personal communuity") to be less dickish, at least part of your reality will be improved.
What I'm trying to examine is something that isn't necessarily imposed by culture. Before we even had culture. I'm specifically trying to reduce zero-sum as a form of logic which holds true in a given situation. Sometimes problems can be solved by negating an obstacle or opponent. I'm not saying these problems can't be solved other ways but they often appear to be played that way. We play zero sum against things other than each other. Maybe this isn't "classical definition" zero sum but it plays that way, imo.
We're dealing with some highly speculative science, here. A lot of blanks to be filled in. There are a lot of blurred lines at present. Where things begin and end. "hardwired" v's "learned" response. Can "hardwired" be "rewired" (biofeedback control of autonomic systems, etc) At some point one system becomes another and it's kinda sketchy where the join is. I'm not even convinced there is necessarily a join.
The repercussions of that suggest to me that fixing society will not fix the whole problem or indeed even be possible, given that all of our brains will still be capable of applying the logic to a given situation. We, collectively, will still exhibit behaviour which appears to the casual observer to be "hardwired". The status seekers, the power trippers. It won't go away.
Er... looks like we still haven't found common ground.
Sorry about that. My bad.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2014, 04:38:21 PM
Heh. Ok, I think we got that sorted out.
Anyway.
So if the entrenched culture in which I live is running game rules based on Zero Sum, how the heck can it be changed? From a functional perspective, what's to be done?
I suppose it's like anything else, act local; if you can influence the people around you (your "tribe", or that trope about teh "50 people that make up your personal communuity") to be less dickish, at least part of your reality will be improved.
I think you've got it. It's a slow crawl. You have to effect what changes you can in the small amont of time and influence you are given and capable of. If possible, you have to scream if from the rooftops, so to speak.
I used to have a lot of fun fucking with true beleivers, no longer. I look for people who mean well, but just don't quite get it, and nudge them. "Hey, don't do that, boss, kay?"
It's a lot like when your friend has something hanging off their nose, you just tell them. That's about as good as we can manage, I think. There is no sense trying to compete with The Machine.
From a business perspective, when you're too small you should just not even try for branding. Compete with Pepsi? Stupid. Instead you have to engage in problem solving marketing. You find people's needs, what challenges they face in acquiring them, and devise slolutions to both.
It's the same with changing culture, IMO. You have to make personal what corporations cannot.
EXAMPLE: my housemate has some family that's been racist their whole lives. Nothing would change their minds that black people were lazy and inherently criminal. Then one of their daughters had two daughters from a black man. This changed their whole minds on the matter. They love those little girls and would smash anyone who said an unkind word to them.
That's how you create lasting change, by showing people in ways they cannot avoid that the world doesn't work the way they think it does.
Also, I suppose just increasing the number of brown and white people banging each other will probably help matters, eventually.
Favorite line from a cool movie not to many people heard of, Bulworth:
"Everybody just keep fucking everybody until we're all the same color."
That is a super cool movie.
And a solution I think we can all get behind. And in front.
Denmark, Sweden, and Norway seem to be making decent progress in the "Not playing life like a zero-sum game" category.
I find it difficult to identify exactly why I haven't moved somewhere like that yet.
Territorial conservatism, I suppose.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 12:22:35 AM
I find it difficult to identify exactly why I haven't moved somewhere like that yet.
Territorial conservatism, I suppose.
Inertia.
Yeah, that too.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 12:22:35 AM
I find it difficult to identify exactly why I haven't moved somewhere like that yet.
Territorial conservatism, I suppose.
It's not all that easy to do, either.
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2014, 12:46:39 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 12:22:35 AM
I find it difficult to identify exactly why I haven't moved somewhere like that yet.
Territorial conservatism, I suppose.
It's not all that easy to do, either.
SERIOUSLY reconsidering that job in Hanau.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2014, 12:47:37 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2014, 12:46:39 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 12:22:35 AM
I find it difficult to identify exactly why I haven't moved somewhere like that yet.
Territorial conservatism, I suppose.
It's not all that easy to do, either.
SERIOUSLY reconsidering that job in Hanau.
Dude, that would be awesome!
Sunk cost fallacy, anyone?
I would bail on Mexico, but idk if i want to leave family behind.
I can't leave the country without leaving my children, so that's not going to happen for at least eight-ten more years.
Quote from: The Johnny on February 26, 2014, 01:11:31 AM
Sunk cost fallacy, anyone?
I would bail on Mexico, but idk if i want to leave family behind.
My problem is that my parents aren't getting any younger. Odds are that if I left now, I'd never see them alive again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2014, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on February 26, 2014, 01:11:31 AM
Sunk cost fallacy, anyone?
I would bail on Mexico, but idk if i want to leave family behind.
My problem is that my parents aren't getting any younger. Odds are that if I left now, I'd never see them alive again.
Yeah, that wouldn't be so cool.
Unless you could take them with you.
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2014, 05:03:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2014, 03:39:55 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on February 26, 2014, 01:11:31 AM
Sunk cost fallacy, anyone?
I would bail on Mexico, but idk if i want to leave family behind.
My problem is that my parents aren't getting any younger. Odds are that if I left now, I'd never see them alive again.
Yeah, that wouldn't be so cool.
Unless you could take them with you.
No, the climate wouldn't agree with them. They're happy here. They are, obviously, clinically insane.
http://www.broadsnark.com/cooperation-is-the-problem/
Cooperation is not only in our nature, it is often the problem
It's true. There are loads and loads of research (Zimbardo's 30 years of research into why people do evil) that indicate that people are allll about cooperating.
One of the things I MOST like about Discordians, actually, is you fuckers' willingness to be the lone dissenter.
http://www.apa.org/research/action/order.aspx
Quote from: Pergamos on February 28, 2014, 10:07:19 PM
http://www.broadsnark.com/cooperation-is-the-problem/
Cooperation is not only in our nature, it is often the problem
Well, thats a bit of curve ball... first of all, its apples and oranges, because economics and judicial issues have different conveyance of what possibly can be "cooperation"... because id call the portrayals of jury behaviour more indifference towards the outcome for a third party and submission to court directives, which can be interpreted as short sighted egocentrism rather than cooperation.
Its kind of funny, the connotation of "cooperation" in a lot of contexts, particuarly with domestic spying and anything judiciary implies "spreading your buttcheeks wide open and let them do whatever they want"... oh? the en-esss-ayee wants all the logs of interactions and communications from your customers? well, were COOPERATING by giving all that info away without resistance! How about unlawful searchs without warrants? oh were just COOPERATING.
In my world id still like to think that cooperating does not mean getting down on one's knees and sucking dick for whomever demands it, but rather doing actions towards a common goal that benefits everyone involved.
Economically cooperaton often takes the form of cartels and trusts. Both of which are disturbingly common.