4 ms·

The article seems biased: it pathologizes power. However our ability to adapt to social role is probably an important asset. Most likely the changes they measur

The article seems biased: it pathologizes power. However our ability to adapt to social role is probably an important asset. Most likely the changes they measured are good for the group's survival. A leader should not be seeking approval as much as a commoner. Maybe the problem is that we've violated some unstated "design assumptions" of our tribes. As for this CEO who got hauled before Congress - a blank affect sounds like the right approach. It's just a ritual for politicians to show off for the cameras, but expressing contempt (as Shkreli did) is dangerous.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
I'm not sure what relation pathologizing power has with bias? I'm also not sure that losing your empathizing ability when in power is any more adaptive than any physical sort of atrophy is adaptive when bedridden. When you're powerful you don't have to exercise the empathizing muscle and so (many) leaders don't. But they should in the same way that I should go and exercise my physical muscles even though I don't have to.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  Muscular atrophy is definitely adaptive as an anti-starvation tool. Don't need that particular muscle? Lose the muscle and become more calorie-efficient. And you get some free caloric energy out of consuming the muscle at the same time.
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    Muscular atrophy certainly is the result of adaption over time. Pissing your pants when you get scared enough is also a product of adaptation. But neither is particularly convenient for a modern human today, which is clearly the actual point of the post above. Reflexive lack of empathy for people in proportion to the degree you have power over them may be a logical product of the evolution of the human organism. But it might not be something a democratic society benefits from in its leaders, to bring thing back to the topic.
andrewflnr 9y ago
A potentially useful instinct that has exceeded its bounds of usefulness is still a pathology. Eating lots of food is useful when you don't know when your next meal is, but in a modern context it leads to obesity. In this case, or seems like the CEOs' performance objectively went down, do I don't see how that's "good for the group's survival" in 2017.
jimbokun 9y ago
"The article seems biased: it pathologizes power." Nope. It just claims power lessens people's capacity for empathy.
bjornsing 9y ago
> Most likely the changes they measured are good for the group's survival. Unless I've missed something it seems much more reasonable to assume that the changes they measure were good for the leader's reproductive success, historically. That's a very different thing though...
gech 9y ago
They didn't mention seeking approval, they mentioned losing empathy. Those in power losing empathy for others is a big deal.
__jal 9y ago
> Most likely the changes they measured are good for the group's survival Why is that "most likely"?

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

I'm not sure what relation pathologizing power has with bias? I'm also not sure that losing your empathizing ability when in power is any more adaptive than any physical sort of atrophy is adaptive when bedridden. When you're powerful you don't have to exercise the empathizing muscle and so (many) leaders don't. But they should in the same way that I should go and exercise my physical muscles even though I don't have to.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
Muscular atrophy is definitely adaptive as an anti-starvation tool. Don't need that particular muscle? Lose the muscle and become more calorie-efficient. And you get some free caloric energy out of consuming the muscle at the same time.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  Muscular atrophy certainly is the result of adaption over time. Pissing your pants when you get scared enough is also a product of adaptation. But neither is particularly convenient for a modern human today, which is clearly the actual point of the post above. Reflexive lack of empathy for people in proportion to the degree you have power over them may be a logical product of the evolution of the human organism. But it might not be something a democratic society benefits from in its leaders, to bring thing back to the topic.

andrewflnr 9y ago

A potentially useful instinct that has exceeded its bounds of usefulness is still a pathology. Eating lots of food is useful when you don't know when your next meal is, but in a modern context it leads to obesity. In this case, or seems like the CEOs' performance objectively went down, do I don't see how that's "good for the group's survival" in 2017.

jimbokun 9y ago

"The article seems biased: it pathologizes power." Nope. It just claims power lessens people's capacity for empathy.

bjornsing 9y ago

> Most likely the changes they measured are good for the group's survival. Unless I've missed something it seems much more reasonable to assume that the changes they measure were good for the leader's reproductive success, historically. That's a very different thing though...

gech 9y ago

They didn't mention seeking approval, they mentioned losing empathy. Those in power losing empathy for others is a big deal.

__jal 9y ago

> Most likely the changes they measured are good for the group's survival Why is that "most likely"?