3 ms·

That's the theory used as intellectual cover by people pursuing money at all costs, but it wasn't the theory until the 1980s afaik. Lots of people have other in

That's the theory used as intellectual cover by people pursuing money at all costs, but it wasn't the theory until the 1980s afaik. Lots of people have other interests, including consumers, employees (as you mentioned), and actually almost all human beings have other motives.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
That’s very true. However in this specific case, the OP is correct for anyone with decision making power at Google
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I think by dehumanizing them, you sacrifice your own influence and humanity. They are humans, with empathy and other human emotions, and can be persuaded. On a slight tangent: A popular technique these days is to aggressively demonstrate amorality, sociopathic lack of compassion, etc. There's a reason they go out of their way to demonstrate it and so aggressively - it's BS. It's a negotiating tactic from the second week of negotiating class: Act angry to put things out of reach and to intimidate people into backing down. <Yawn.>
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >I think by dehumanizing them, you sacrifice your own influence and humanity. They are humans, with empathy and other human emotions, and can be persuaded. Sure, but these are humans with no stake in the company. They are not investing in Google because they believe in their mission nor do they even care if Google crashes in 5 years. They believe it's a way to quickly grow their portfolio, and will change as the market does. This isn't to say they aren't human, just that they are at best more invested in other things or at worst are greedy and selfish. >Act angry to put things out of reach and to intimidate people into backing down I don't exactly feel better knowing it's just a facade towards the above spectrum.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      The parent comments were about Google management, not investors.

3 ms·

That's the theory used as intellectual cover by people pursuing money at all costs, but it wasn't the theory until the 1980s afaik. Lots of people have other in

by wolverine876 3y ago

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
That’s very true. However in this specific case, the OP is correct for anyone with decision making power at Google
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I think by dehumanizing them, you sacrifice your own influence and humanity. They are humans, with empathy and other human emotions, and can be persuaded. On a slight tangent: A popular technique these days is to aggressively demonstrate amorality, sociopathic lack of compassion, etc. There's a reason they go out of their way to demonstrate it and so aggressively - it's BS. It's a negotiating tactic from the second week of negotiating class: Act angry to put things out of reach and to intimidate people into backing down. <Yawn.>
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >I think by dehumanizing them, you sacrifice your own influence and humanity. They are humans, with empathy and other human emotions, and can be persuaded. Sure, but these are humans with no stake in the company. They are not investing in Google because they believe in their mission nor do they even care if Google crashes in 5 years. They believe it's a way to quickly grow their portfolio, and will change as the market does. This isn't to say they aren't human, just that they are at best more invested in other things or at worst are greedy and selfish. >Act angry to put things out of reach and to intimidate people into backing down I don't exactly feel better knowing it's just a facade towards the above spectrum.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      The parent comments were about Google management, not investors.