Rob Kall: Okay, what is it?
M.E. Thomas: So the theory is, and I forget what the name of the author is unfortunately. If you Google it, then you'd be able to come up with it. He's talking about the structure of modern corporations, or modern businesses, and what is the role that a sociopath has in a modern business? And he says a lot of sociopaths, he has a pyramid, on the top are sociopaths, then the next level of the pyramid is clueless, and then the bottom is losers, I think. *chuckles*
It's a very funny diagram, I don't think he originated the diagram, but he talks about it. And he uses the British version of the television show The Office, starring Rickey Gervais, as an example of who the clueless are, who the losers are, and who the sociopaths are. And he says that for a business at the beginning it's good to have sociopaths, a lot of sociopaths, because they're entrepreneurial, and they're risk taking. And you need that sort of ruthlessness and risk taking for a business to succeed, particularly when it's just starting out.
But then, you also, you can't just have sociopaths, because he says sociopaths are lazy. So you need to get a couple losers, who are like the work horses, who are going to do the brunt of all the work that is going on. And, they, so you have sociopaths bossing around the losers. The losers don't know any better. The losers think that they're getting a good deal, when really the sociopaths are using and abusing them, as you would say. So that, that's how it works. But as the company grows bigger, you can't just have the sociopaths there anymore directly over the losers. So you, you have to fill it in with middle managers that are clueless, middle managers who are devoted to the job, and who think that they know what is going on.
So in the American version of The Office, the Michael Scott character would be the clueless person, who, he doesn't realize he's being manipulated by the sociopaths. And he takes his job very seriously. And, and it's very hierarchical, but the sociopaths are at the top. Sociopaths are also at the bottom, because in any corporation there's going to be waste. And there's going to be some employees that are good workers, and work horses, and then there are going to be other employees who just show up and get their paycheck. In the American version of The Office, like a Stanly character, who just shows up and wants to get paid and then leave, right?
And they're sociopaths because they think, "Well I'm going to put in the bare minimum amount of effort, and get the same amount of money as these people who are working harder". So I think that's, and when I, when I heard you say top down, that's sort of what I thought. That that seems like a structure that we see frequently, not just in businesses, but in government, in other situations. Where there are people who are clueless, and there are people that are sociopaths who are manipulating the clueless people. And then there are people who are kind of losers, the work horses, that end up doing most of the work.
So, so the idea of bottom up, I'm not as familiar with it. I don't know how a sociopath would operate more in that situation. Probably, I mean sociopaths I think are actually very meritocratic, they, they're constantly valuing other people, that's true. But they value people I think more objective, objectively than most. You know so, they wouldn't think that, they, they are fine with the losers. You know a lot of people are like, "Oh I don't want to be seen with losers, I don't even want to hire losers, because I don't want to be around losers". But the sociopaths understand that the losers can be some of the best workers, right?
So I think that sociopaths tend to be a little bit more meritocratic, and they tend to like situations that are more meritocratic, you know libertarians or the Ayn Rand sort of thought. Because they, if there's a game that has a set of rules that are strictly enforced, and there's no, the game isn't rigged, then I think sociopaths are very incentivized to play those sorts of games. They naturally, are attracted by things that look like games. So bottom up society would probably look more like a meritocratic game to them than it would a, rigged game in which there's sort of an aristocracy, or top people who control things. And they get to choose who succeeds and who rises, and it's not based on merit.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
