Vergazi
Well-Known Member
@NormalMoon are you sure your parents aren't really Willy Wonka and the Queen of Hearts?
-
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
Click here to register for a forum account!
If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.
Your Elvenar Team
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
The unfortunate banishment of Nonchalant Antipathy reminds me of the three punishments laid out by the Greeks. They too, are part of human nature. (Wasn't that a nice segue? LOL). Although they didn't present these three things a punishments so much, in Plato's case, as classifications for people to determine their role in society, and in Aristotle as paths of persuasion, nevertheless, since they are both traditional and reflective of language itself, I will give you all a short synopsis of the matter.
First, Plato presents three general roles in his ideal society. The Philsopher-King, the Guardians, and the Producers. The first has the responsibility of finding truth. He or she lives in the world of ideas, reason, thought, etc... and is trained to gain wisdom and knowledge. The second, the Guardians, live in the world of ordering society. They are focused on how the city organizes itself and maintains that order -- an order designed/discovered by the Philsopher-King. Finally, the Producers are responsible for providing what the city needs to maintain itself and support the Guardians and Philsopher-King. Their focus is on the physical needs of the city -- food, material goods, trading, etc.
Now Aristotle takes these three basic and fundamental concepts and notices they are the same three present in persuasion. Their are reasons and evidence presented logically -- the "mental" part of persuasion. There is the authority of the speaker -- his or her "gravitas" or ability to "identify" with the audience. And there is the emotional appeal -- usually presented with imagination -- which focuses on how the person's body feels. The first he called "logos," the second, "ethos", and the third, "pathos." The mind, the social relationships, and th ebody.
Now every communicative act, for the most part, has all three components. If I say, "Open the door" I am using the words to give a command. The emotional content is an implied notification that the door needs to be opened -- meaning the physical world needs altering by a physical act. The social content is that I am notifying you by my words, that our relationship is such that I can say the words in the manner said. If you were unknown to me I might say, "Open the door, please, as it's hot in here" because, again, my relationship to you is not as familiar and I, therefore, need to not this and give an explanation as to why the door needs opened. I am also acknowledging that my request might not be appropriate, so I as "please." And finally, the statement has it's logical or plain sense. It is a statement that says you need to rise, go to the door, and open it...plain and simple.
Each of us lives in a world of our own -- an ontological focus, to be more technical. This is our "ontological" world where we hear the words spoken and tend to understand them first in that manner. A "logical" person (called a "mentalist") might not pick up the difference between "Open the door" and "Open the door, please" and equate the two with the exact same meaning. A social person -- one whose ontological world makes them pay close attention to the social implications (a 'societist') of the words, would very much sense the difference between "Open the door" and "Open the door, please." And a physical person (a "physicalist") would react with a certain attitude of if they wanted to put the effort into the act of opening the door or not. (Or they might get upset having been ordered to do something).
Since there are three worlds and each person has an ontologicaly primary one (the world it is said they 'live in') self-actualization means to increase their sense of presence in that world. They, therefore, thrive when their world is increased and are discouraged when it is not. For this reason there are three types of punishment. First, you can give the person a "talking to" where you lay out the reasons they should not have done what they did or said what they said. Second, you can isolate them from other people for their errs. And finally, you can physically punish them with "hard labor" or "physical pain" (spanking of children, etc.) The percentage of people who are mentalist is around 5%. The percentage of people who are "societist" is 15-20%. The percentage of physicalist is the rest -- 70-80%.
So if Nonchalant Antipathy is a societist your punishment will work. If not, well, you might like to give him a "talking to" or a kick in the seat of the pants, instead.
AJ
First, Plato presents three general roles in his ideal society. The Philsopher-King, the Guardians, and the Producers. The first has the responsibility of finding truth. He or she lives in the world of ideas, reason, thought, etc... and is trained to gain wisdom and knowledge. The second, the Guardians, live in the world of ordering society. They are focused on how the city organizes itself and maintains that order -- an order designed/discovered by the Philsopher-King. Finally, the Producers are responsible for providing what the city needs to maintain itself and support the Guardians and Philsopher-King. Their focus is on the physical needs of the city -- food, material goods, trading, etc.
Now Aristotle takes these three basic and fundamental concepts and notices they are the same three present in persuasion. Their are reasons and evidence presented logically -- the "mental" part of persuasion. There is the authority of the speaker -- his or her "gravitas" or ability to "identify" with the audience. And there is the emotional appeal -- usually presented with imagination -- which focuses on how the person's body feels. The first he called "logos," the second, "ethos", and the third, "pathos." The mind, the social relationships, and th ebody.
Now every communicative act, for the most part, has all three components. If I say, "Open the door" I am using the words to give a command. The emotional content is an implied notification that the door needs to be opened -- meaning the physical world needs altering by a physical act. The social content is that I am notifying you by my words, that our relationship is such that I can say the words in the manner said. If you were unknown to me I might say, "Open the door, please, as it's hot in here" because, again, my relationship to you is not as familiar and I, therefore, need to not this and give an explanation as to why the door needs opened. I am also acknowledging that my request might not be appropriate, so I as "please." And finally, the statement has it's logical or plain sense. It is a statement that says you need to rise, go to the door, and open it...plain and simple.
Each of us lives in a world of our own -- an ontological focus, to be more technical. This is our "ontological" world where we hear the words spoken and tend to understand them first in that manner. A "logical" person (called a "mentalist") might not pick up the difference between "Open the door" and "Open the door, please" and equate the two with the exact same meaning. A social person -- one whose ontological world makes them pay close attention to the social implications (a 'societist') of the words, would very much sense the difference between "Open the door" and "Open the door, please." And a physical person (a "physicalist") would react with a certain attitude of if they wanted to put the effort into the act of opening the door or not. (Or they might get upset having been ordered to do something).
Since there are three worlds and each person has an ontologicaly primary one (the world it is said they 'live in') self-actualization means to increase their sense of presence in that world. They, therefore, thrive when their world is increased and are discouraged when it is not. For this reason there are three types of punishment. First, you can give the person a "talking to" where you lay out the reasons they should not have done what they did or said what they said. Second, you can isolate them from other people for their errs. And finally, you can physically punish them with "hard labor" or "physical pain" (spanking of children, etc.) The percentage of people who are mentalist is around 5%. The percentage of people who are "societist" is 15-20%. The percentage of physicalist is the rest -- 70-80%.
So if Nonchalant Antipathy is a societist your punishment will work. If not, well, you might like to give him a "talking to" or a kick in the seat of the pants, instead.
AJ
DeletedUser19483
Guest
Funny you should say that.......
@ajqtrz what you said made me realize that if Nonchalants banishment isn't punishment enough than I shall curse sanity upon Nonchalant. *mad laughter*
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
The thing about lemons is that's one method of picking them. You "bark" very loudly and the resonance of your bark caused them to vibrate until the fall from the tree. Really. I kid you not. What? -- you don't believe me!? "The horror, the horror."
@Normal Moon You have now added "mental anguish" to the punishment so if his ontological world is mentalist or societist you hit the mark. However, most people are physicalist and a good kick in the seat of the pants is probably what's needed here. Sorry Nonchalant, but that's what the odds tell us.
AJ
PS. I'm a mentalist so all I need is a good talking to.
@Normal Moon You have now added "mental anguish" to the punishment so if his ontological world is mentalist or societist you hit the mark. However, most people are physicalist and a good kick in the seat of the pants is probably what's needed here. Sorry Nonchalant, but that's what the odds tell us.
AJ
PS. I'm a mentalist so all I need is a good talking to.
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
@NormalMoon. Which is why I use a "handle" nobody can trace. AND I may, or may not, live in Milwaukee, as previously claimed. ;>)
AJ
AJ
DeletedUser20951
Guest
Aw, no more? Listening to, or reading, people talking about me is greatly entertaining, since they are usually so far off base as to be comical, even when I explicitly state my intentions or circumstances.
This is an interesting subject, but one I give very little credence to, because I see it as ultimately harmful to stereotype and categorize everybody. Still, I don't mind bantering on the matter.
The thought of any single person being in charge of the whole always gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, given that I don't believe anybody is infallible, regardless of however wise they might be, and those who seek out and/or are comfortable wielding power usually are the least suitable to possess it. Never have believed that wisdom is universal, either; we're all smart about some things and dumb about others, despite varying levels of intelligence.
You should always say "Please"... If you value and respect the other person, that is. Doesn't make any difference, to me personally, what the recipient's potential for picking up the implicit meaning is. Being polite reflects on yourself. I also firmly stand with such requests being made with genuine acknowledgement that it can be denied without sparking anger; a true question and not a command.
Ha, yeah, I would be annoyed at receiving an order, especially if the person doing the ordering could just as easily complete the task themselves, but, then again, I frown, severely, at able-bodied people who consistently pawn off menial duties on another. The flaws in simplicity of the theory is exposed here because, for the majority, all three would factor into a split-second decision on how you would respond, although you'd lean further towards one of 'em, I suppose, yet it would be quite dependent on the specific situation. Basically, you might react a different way when asked by a different person or when you're in a different mood.
Almost no form of punishment can force me into doing anything. Instead, I have to want to do whatever it is in order to do so, and I can be reasoned with... to an extent, anyway. Unless I am shown that my behavior is causing unconscionable (judged by my own guiding morals) damage to someone (and I don't actually want to cause them damage), no amount of discussion will prompt a change in my deportment. Also, do NOT spank children. It's been proven to not only not improve their behavior, but encourages the use of violence as a manner of conflict resolution, too.
Somehow, perhaps due to your own quotation of five percent, I doubt this.
If by "sanity", you mean view things through a traditional and widely accepted lens of normalcy, NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Save me from this horror, Superman!
Vergazi
Well-Known Member
Regarding corporal punishment...
I am of the opinion that it can be appropriate, but only in certain, narrow, specific circumstances where physical safety of the child or others is threatened by their careless or thoughtless behavior.
However, I agree that in most cases CP are harmful and traumatizing. From personal experience I can say that extreme physical trauma alone does not cause lasting psychological scars. It also requires a kind of disconnect that exists when an errant or bad behaving child is punished and is truly unaware of what it is they are being punished for. In the mind and heart of the unknowing child the physical act is a fundamental betrayal by the person(s) who are supposed to love them and whom they trust utterly. Repeated acts of physical or verbal violence when one is ignorant of what they have allegedly done ( or may well not have done, when siblings can be involved in this drama ) destroys this bond of love and trust over time. At a formative age this erosion and/or destruction of close emotional bonding, I believe, is the fundamental cause of most, not all, but most psychological problems that people suffer. At least those that are do not have genetic or chemical causes.
A specific case comes to mind. A parent spanks a child in a supermarket because they are loud and making a fuss. The parent spanks the child out of embarrassment stemming from the child's bad behavior imo. This is a selfish act and only harms the child. The child only wants attention or is reacting to all of the aggressive marketing campaign ads that they see on television that they are plopped down in front of in lieu of a babysitter or proper supervision/interaction with their parent(s).
In the case of a parent who spanks a child that has habitually attempted to dart out into a busy street to get a ball without stopping and looking. This is done out of love, since they do not want the child turned into pavement pizza by a truck. Of course, if the parent spanks the child and doesn't make it obvious why the spanking is being done then they are being abusive, since there is no connection of the punishment to the deed in the mind of the child.
Yep, not PC at all and old fashioned I suppose, but if anyone wants to tell me how wrong I am that's fine I can take it.
I am of the opinion that it can be appropriate, but only in certain, narrow, specific circumstances where physical safety of the child or others is threatened by their careless or thoughtless behavior.
However, I agree that in most cases CP are harmful and traumatizing. From personal experience I can say that extreme physical trauma alone does not cause lasting psychological scars. It also requires a kind of disconnect that exists when an errant or bad behaving child is punished and is truly unaware of what it is they are being punished for. In the mind and heart of the unknowing child the physical act is a fundamental betrayal by the person(s) who are supposed to love them and whom they trust utterly. Repeated acts of physical or verbal violence when one is ignorant of what they have allegedly done ( or may well not have done, when siblings can be involved in this drama ) destroys this bond of love and trust over time. At a formative age this erosion and/or destruction of close emotional bonding, I believe, is the fundamental cause of most, not all, but most psychological problems that people suffer. At least those that are do not have genetic or chemical causes.
A specific case comes to mind. A parent spanks a child in a supermarket because they are loud and making a fuss. The parent spanks the child out of embarrassment stemming from the child's bad behavior imo. This is a selfish act and only harms the child. The child only wants attention or is reacting to all of the aggressive marketing campaign ads that they see on television that they are plopped down in front of in lieu of a babysitter or proper supervision/interaction with their parent(s).
In the case of a parent who spanks a child that has habitually attempted to dart out into a busy street to get a ball without stopping and looking. This is done out of love, since they do not want the child turned into pavement pizza by a truck. Of course, if the parent spanks the child and doesn't make it obvious why the spanking is being done then they are being abusive, since there is no connection of the punishment to the deed in the mind of the child.
Yep, not PC at all and old fashioned I suppose, but if anyone wants to tell me how wrong I am that's fine I can take it.
DeletedUser20951
Guest
Oh, I definitely counter violence with violence, to defend myself and others. No argument there, except on the terminology.
Oops, double "oh" with an added "wait". I misunderstood what I read. I strongly disagree.
It didn't for you, but it can for someone else.
Yes!
This kind of contradicts what you said previously, but I agree, nonetheless.
YES!!!
I understand this urge fully, but still maintain that it is done out of fear, and that other punishments should be employed to curb the dangerous behavior proactively. The problem tends to be, though, that it requires much more effort on the parents'/caretakers' part, while spanking is a quick, easy quasi-solution for immediate gratification in some manner (releaving fear with a physical outburst, in this case).
Vergazi
Well-Known Member
From another perspective it has not as much to do with alleviating fear, primarily, as with creating a certain level of confidence that their loved one will not become roadkill. Here we, perhaps, get into the weeds on semantics, but that's fine. Some of the best things in life are found off the beaten path in the thorny brush. Wild Blackberries! oh, soon they will be MINE! Paid for with blood and pain, of course.
DeletedUser20951
Guest
Aye, we have delved into that, but there remains the matter that I don't believe there is any true justification for spanking, just more sympathetic reasons for it.
Muahahahahaha! Dear Gods, YES. Blackberries, in so much as I like food, are my favorite (or, rather, least unappealing) fruit, and they grow in profusion around here. Ah, those delightfully dangerous THORNS WITH NO MERCY plants that produce them.
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Yet you do it. You do, in fact, summarize and catalogue people within seconds of meeting them. You may not have formal categories and/or a theory of personality you use, but you do measure and categorize. This process is natural must be enacted for the simple reason that who you face is "friend or foe" -- it's a survival instinct. AND, as you correctly surmise, much the foundation for pre-judging people.
However, just as you also say it can be used to "stereotype and categorize everybody," that "stereotyping and categorizing" is not necessarily a bad thing. You walk into a subway and immediately begin the process. The people you "don't know" are ignored. You categorize them instantly as "safe" unless they are engaging in behaviors you find strange. The people in uniform you pay attention to. Their uniform categorizes them as "in charge" and having "authority" to make your journey safe and pleasant or not. You see a friend and in the recognition you categorize them as someone with whom you must enact some ritual greeting. You do not simply approach each person in your environment with a blank slate about them, you pick up clues as to their relationship to you and if they are, or could become, a danger. And how you do that is to look at how they are dressed, their mannerisms, and yes, their ethnic markers. Failure to be able to "stereotype and categorize" would mean you would have to examine and watch each individual much too carefully to move through life without a lot of anxiety. Sadly, though, as you say, people sometimes pick arbitrary markers and link them with attitudes about the people having those markers and judge them.
Examples happen every day and all are quite necessary at least in principle because it takes time to know someone and we usually have only a fleeting glance, a few moments, to classify and categorize a person before we have to know how to treat them and have a pretty good idea of how they might treat us.
There are a ton of personality theories out there. In this forum there are the Houses of Harry Potter (or whatever they are called). There are the Jungian types (Myer-Brigs), Winnie-the-Pooh, color based (really a typology based on a color preference!), hororscopes, numerology, and so on. Some are well developed and used in the social sciences to try to ferret out what we do and why. Some are rather silly and whimsical and meant for entertainment. The thing is, some are useful in our daily lives because they give us insight into other people's responses and help us understand them.
Yeah, I get it. "Nobody's perfect" Plato's idea was to use rigorous testing so that the actual 'cream of the crop' ended up at the top rather than somebody's spoiled brat of a kid. It is probably a nearly universal fact that once a person gets power he or she thinks the power is theirs to pass on to their offspring. This is why one French Ambassador said that if George Washing actually stepped down he'd be the greatest man since Jesus Christ. People in Europe were shocked when he relinquished the Presidency. Plato saw this and sought a remedy -- the rigorous testing and weeding out based upon a persons personality and abilities.
I doubt a Captain on the battlefield stops to be polite. In fact, saying "please" is saying you respect the person enough to give them an implied opportunity to refuse! First responders are taught to take charge and that means put themselves in a place where 'please' is not to be used. Orders must be given as orders, not polite requests. And I suspect you pick up on the subtleties of communication all the time and use them yourself. You react to peoples words and read into them (or get out of them what is there) their implied attitudes without even know it. Again, that's human nature. And, in fact, if you don't pay attention to those implied attitudes you are usually get in more trouble since they too, are part of communication.
You are correct that the presentation of the theory is simple. The actual, full theory, takes up over 800 pages and includes neurophysiology's, links to Jungian types, literary theory, linguistics and a whole bunch of other things. My point was not to make anybody a master of the whole thing but to simply give them a little insight into what they might use to understand others.
I'm glad you said, "almost no form" can force you to do anything. I suspect you have been forced many times but not realized it. Getting fired from your job would be a form of punishment. You keep your job by doing whatever you need to do to avoid that punishment, right? Taking orders from anybody -- politely delivered or not -- is something you do all the time. Somebody put the speed limit up. Somebody decided you have to pay for things. You don't steal everything because if you did, you'd be punished. Sometimes the fear of punishment is enough. In fact it usually is.
Why? Statistically somebody has to be a mentalist or we wouldn't have 5% mentalist in the world. What evidence do you have that my measure is incorrect? Remember, the theory is much larger than the simple presentation of one of it's aspects. In fact it provides for 144 personality types! But I'm curious as to why you find it necessary to doubt my claim. I suspect you, like many others, see the "mentalist" as some kind of highly intelligent individual and thus, claiming to be one, a sort of "patting myself on the back." If so you have to realize that being a mentalist is not a measure of intelligence at all. A mentalist can be as dumb as a brick and still be a mentalist. He or she just lives in the world of ideas, interprets communication in a more simplistic and less socially sensitive manner perhaps, and, depending on other factors, tend to theorize more than others. Is there something here you are seeing which gives you pause with my self-evaluation? Do share.
AJ
DeletedUser20951
Guest
Everybody does it, indeed, and I don't have a problem with judging an individual's troubling behavior. I think judging by appearance is asinine and frequently misleading, though, and I actively fight my natural predisposal to the habit, although I simply seem to just not do so in most cases. Unless a physical feature is remarked upon or pointed out, I don't usually notice on my own.
I do carefully examine and watch each person I encounter, and while it is draining, I don't feel anxiety in the endeavor. I see it as a personal responsibility to be both mindful of the smooth operation of interactions and to evaluate each person on their own merit, not my brain's penchant for shortcuts.
Yes, you can tell a lot about someone based on how they view themselves, whether accurate or not.
This switches a banal request into an important order, and I believe using polite wording in such situations is counter-intuitive, and even patronizing when there is no actual room for denial.
It should come as little surprise that I have been fired from several jobs due to challenging my bosses on their bull. I don't tolerate abusive conduct is any context, no matter the cost to myself. Of course, I am often treated more respectfully than my less assertive peers, and the vast majority of the time I was going to bat for coworkers. One particularly delightful idiot, who had no idea of how to lead effectively, would terrorize my fellow employees, some to the point where they were in tears, and although this arse spoke to me like an equal (fricking cowardly bullies), I stood up against the injustice whenever it occurred until I was ultimately sent packing. This store manager was fired a couple months later, so they did get to experience a bit of karma.
Mainly because of the subtle slights cast at my own character in your previous post (and, yes, you did phrase the other two as being inferior). I wanted to return the favor and I figured it would tweak your tail. Since I don't know you and self-evaluations are always somewhat questionable, I don't actually have much of an opinion as to how you might handle yourself outside of the internet realm and which category you fall into. I could take your word on it, which would be the less contrarian route and friendlier, but, eh, I'm not feeling that at the moment.
DeletedUser20951
Guest
The Essence of Profanity Density
I've gone through various stages of cursing; the rebellious teenage add an "ef", "be", "cee", or whichever flavor between every other word, the cuss like a sailor factory worker, and almost completely eliminating said expletives from my verbal vocabulary when my nieces were children (and I still don't swear around them), while I'm fairly fluid with the practice now and code-switch regularly depending on the audience. Despite these dialect shifts, my thoughts on the matter of obscenities have never wavered, and I feel any level of frequency from an adult is acceptable, as long as the listeners don't mind and are adults, as well. If kids do curse, I am not bothered by it, nor do I try to correct it, since I believe there are much more serious battles to pick regarding conduct, such as drug use and other risky behavior, and not worth the effort to police, but I attempt to model appropriate etiquette, nonetheless, due to the meanings behind the words.
Overall, choosing to use profanity gratuitously, sparingly, or refusing to entirely, has very little bearing other than being a personal preference of style. Those who claim it is their right to swear up a blue-streak no matter the discomfort of the people they are talking to, though? There are numerous insulting interjections to accurately describe them.
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
On the subject of not putting up with the "bull" of bosses, as a long time "top boss" of a corporation when the boss is being stupid it's usually because his or her goals are different than his or her subordinates. Generally that means they are being told to do or accomplish X without the proper resources for accomplishing X. This means they haven't got the resources needed to give to the workers and thus, the workers don't have what they need to do the job correctly.
When this happens everybody puts pressure on everybody below them to make up for what those above them didn't give them to get the job done. Sigh. Often corners are cut, people given more work (and sometimes work for which they are not qualified) and people get defensive and testy. Not a good work environment.
And sometimes the workers themselves don't realize the strain their supervisors are under to produce results without proper resources. I do wish I could say I never, in the 26 years I headed the company, asked my subordinates to do the impossible against impossible odds, but, alas, sometimes I too, made mistakes. In the long run I learned to ask, "what do you think it will take to do X?" Once I mastered listening to their answer with an open mind I made sure they had what they thought they needed or we didn't do the project.
In then end, the last ten or fifteen years or so, I am proud to say we were well-respected and only had to fire two or three people for drug related problems. Nobody every quit or was fired because they hated their job.
I guess in the end to really lead you must be willing to say when you are wrong and to know when you are making a mistake you must listen to your employees and take whatever they say seriously. When you do that you find the employees often know better and are much better at trusting your decisions even when they disagree with them. Humility goes a long way in relationships and the work place is no different.
AJ
When this happens everybody puts pressure on everybody below them to make up for what those above them didn't give them to get the job done. Sigh. Often corners are cut, people given more work (and sometimes work for which they are not qualified) and people get defensive and testy. Not a good work environment.
And sometimes the workers themselves don't realize the strain their supervisors are under to produce results without proper resources. I do wish I could say I never, in the 26 years I headed the company, asked my subordinates to do the impossible against impossible odds, but, alas, sometimes I too, made mistakes. In the long run I learned to ask, "what do you think it will take to do X?" Once I mastered listening to their answer with an open mind I made sure they had what they thought they needed or we didn't do the project.
In then end, the last ten or fifteen years or so, I am proud to say we were well-respected and only had to fire two or three people for drug related problems. Nobody every quit or was fired because they hated their job.
I guess in the end to really lead you must be willing to say when you are wrong and to know when you are making a mistake you must listen to your employees and take whatever they say seriously. When you do that you find the employees often know better and are much better at trusting your decisions even when they disagree with them. Humility goes a long way in relationships and the work place is no different.
AJ
DeletedUser20951
Guest
This is more of a communication deficiency. I believe a decent boss should be able to explain what the aims are and where each employee fits into it, but, alas, the traits that make people more proficient at rising up in a company tend to be quite antisocial; lack of empathy, willingness to benefit personally to the detriment of others, little remorse for the plight of lower-ranked coworkers, extreme self-confidence with a sense of always being right and not subject to criticism. This does intersect with my definition of "bull" in the workplace, which is verbal abuse, threats, and keeping underlings in a state of almost constant panic and pressure, as these individuals are the most likely to rule with such unhealthy and hindering strategies. Many, though, are simply modeling how they were taught to 'lead' and have little idea as to the negative impact on productivity and staff retention.
If more people were capable of this, a great deal of the world's problems would be solved, but, unless one actively fights the way power changes how the brain functions, nearly everybody becomes less adept at listening and admitting fault. Recent studies have found that the very few who do manage to keep in touch with the reality of the average person had struggled significantly early on in their lives, and holding on to the memory of the difficulties had a grounding effect.
DeletedUser
Guest
Your personal experience and mine are very, very different. Lucky you.
shimmerfly
Well-Known Member
+1