3 ms·

I don't really understand why anyone would consider "don't apologize for anything" a "power move". I understand why someone who lacks empathy would default to t

by hnarn 5y ago

I don't really understand why anyone would consider "don't apologize for anything" a "power move". I understand why someone who lacks empathy would default to that kind of behavior, but I don't agree that it's rational. Being open, honest and actionable is what creates a dependable leader or co-worker in my mind, anyone that attempts to cover up problems, blames others and avoids resolving issues would lose my trust very quickly, which from a Machiavellian perspective is not in that persons interest. Humans are very social beings and we have been conditioned over thousands of years to identify unreliable partners and shun them, the idea of the "highly functional psychopath" is a complete myth, because the only context a person like that can succeed is in one where human relationships are irrelevant (because they are temporary, for example).

scaramanga 5y ago
I always wondered how so many people I know who are in high positions manage to be so immature and irresponsible, they never take responsibility, they play childish blame games, and so on. I feel like if I followed their example, I'd be a pariah. Then I realised... That stuff is not the way you become powerful, it's a perk of power to be enjoyed. Not having to consider the lives, experiences or needs of others is the reward, it's the entire definition of success for these people. And in the personal examples I know, the people just arrived at their positions of power via their parents, their background, and their connections, not through shrewd Machiavellian manoeuvring.
- hnarn 5y ago
  > That stuff is not the way you become powerful, it's a perk of power to be enjoyed. Well, I don't know. I partly agree. First of all, I don't think it's a "perk" that people who did not have that kind of personality in the first place would like to enjoy. I also think that there's an inverted funnel of empathy when it comes to people in leadership positions, because the larger a group becomes, the more beneficial "maneuvering" becomes and the less beneficial "classic" emphatic traits becomes that would make you likable in a smaller group. > the people just arrived at their positions of power via their parents, their background, and their connections, not through shrewd Machiavellian manoeuvring. I think it's pretty safe to assume that anyone that grew up with "powerful" parents will have a pretty Machiavellian personality by default just based on the context they grew up in, so even if they get the position completely on the merits of nepotism I think it's pretty unlikely they will be very empathetic and "bleeding heart" kind of people. There are scientific studies for example that show that empathy decreases with material wealth.[1] [1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduce...
- wolverine876 5y ago
  'Power corrupts' is the entire answer to the puzzle.
scaramanga 5y ago
Or to put it another way, people with money and power don't get shunned for their shitty behaviour because people need money. What actually happens is that people turn themselves in to codependents or enablers.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
theknocker 5y ago
[dead]

by hnarn 5y ago

scaramanga 5y ago

I always wondered how so many people I know who are in high positions manage to be so immature and irresponsible, they never take responsibility, they play childish blame games, and so on. I feel like if I followed their example, I'd be a pariah. Then I realised... That stuff is not the way you become powerful, it's a perk of power to be enjoyed. Not having to consider the lives, experiences or needs of others is the reward, it's the entire definition of success for these people. And in the personal examples I know, the people just arrived at their positions of power via their parents, their background, and their connections, not through shrewd Machiavellian manoeuvring.

hnarn 5y ago
> That stuff is not the way you become powerful, it's a perk of power to be enjoyed. Well, I don't know. I partly agree. First of all, I don't think it's a "perk" that people who did not have that kind of personality in the first place would like to enjoy. I also think that there's an inverted funnel of empathy when it comes to people in leadership positions, because the larger a group becomes, the more beneficial "maneuvering" becomes and the less beneficial "classic" emphatic traits becomes that would make you likable in a smaller group. > the people just arrived at their positions of power via their parents, their background, and their connections, not through shrewd Machiavellian manoeuvring. I think it's pretty safe to assume that anyone that grew up with "powerful" parents will have a pretty Machiavellian personality by default just based on the context they grew up in, so even if they get the position completely on the merits of nepotism I think it's pretty unlikely they will be very empathetic and "bleeding heart" kind of people. There are scientific studies for example that show that empathy decreases with material wealth.[1] [1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduce...
wolverine876 5y ago
'Power corrupts' is the entire answer to the puzzle.

scaramanga 5y ago

Or to put it another way, people with money and power don't get shunned for their shitty behaviour because people need money. What actually happens is that people turn themselves in to codependents or enablers.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

theknocker 5y ago

[dead]