5 ms·

Do you truely believe google, OpenAI or Ford are the product of a single person?

by bergen 3y ago

Jensson 3y ago
Everyone contributed for the sake of themselves and not for the greater good of the company, that is what individualism is.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Ypu onoy have collegues like that? Sounds quite toxic.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    You have colleagues that would continue to work if they no longer got paid? Rats jump ship in an individualistic system, in a collectivist system you expect the rats to sacrifice themselves to save the whole. Managers often tries to sell you on the collective so you work harder and demand less pay, but that is just him as an individual trying to get more out of you that doesn't mean it actually works like a collective.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      I have collegues who care about their work quality, and the impact their work has in their colleuges work. In short, they care about more than just a pay check and increasing that pay check. Like in non-selfcentered egomaniacs.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        But the main reason they are there is someone paid them to be there. Of course humans like to do good, so why not do good while getting paid, but the glue for the whole system is individualism, that is what makes all the workers go to work every day so it is what keeps them together. Remove the pay and all the workers scatters and move to different places in almost every case. Or in other words, that is an individualistic organization. > care about their work quality, and the impact their work has in their colleuges work Yeah, they care about their own ideals, not the organization itself. They can care about their coworkers, but they don't care about Wallmarts bottomline. So as you see, this individualistic organization can still draw from the power of human collectivist needs, so you get the best of both worlds, you get the collectivist goodness at small scale and the greed that glues together them and make them power through even when they are too tired to care about the collective.
        hef19898 3y ago
        What, no! In any system people have to work to live: food, housing and such cost money. Doing "good" has nithing to do with it, and I never said that. The question is, do you care about more than the monthly pay check for something you pass most of your day doing or not? What keeps the workers showing up to work is the need to live. What keeps them at a particular place is a myriad of things. Individualism is not part of that. And why do you go immediately to "remove the pay"? There is quite some territory between working for free and not valueing a sufficient salary above all else. Funny so, how everybody working in a sector withbstrong labour unions is basically making more, for less hours, on average than those without them. Seems individualism is a great way to devide and conquer for people holding all the power, because once peoole are convinced individualism is better than cooperation, they voluntarily devide themselves.
        Jensson 3y ago
        > What keeps the workers showing up to work is the need to live. What keeps them at a particular place is a myriad of things. Individualism is not part of that. Lets say an equivalent company with similar culture and people offered twice the salary, how many would say no? People saying yes in that situation are not there for the collective, they are there for their own sake first and foremost. The collective is an afterthought since they abandon it the instant a better opportunity appears.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      I think it's more comparable to say "You have colleagues that would continue to work even if they got a better paying job offer?". A purely individualistic mindset would take whatever gets them more money for less hours. Someone staying despite that must have some sort of collectivist mindset that is non-financial qualities of life. Be it the company, the peers, the problem space, etc.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Some people should really read up on Pawlow's pyramid. Money isn't everything...
        Jensson 3y ago
        I didn't say they only cared about money, but that they stayed for their own reasons and not for the sake of the company. If they find the work at one place less demanding they might take that instead, but that is an individualistic reason as well.
        throw4847285 3y ago
        You've made the rookie mistake of reducing the concept of self-interest to anything somebody does because they want to, and thus making egoism tautologically true. You can convince people that radically different things are in their self-interest, from joining hands and singing Kumbaya to Genocide. The notion of self-interest (or I guess in your case individualism, which is even shakier) is an empty vessel you can fill with nearly anything.
        Jensson 3y ago
        > You've made the rookie mistake of reducing the concept of self-interest to anything somebody does because they want to, and thus making egoism tautologically true. No, that isn't the same thing. A collectivist would do things he hates and he doesn't believe in personally because the collective wants him to do it. He would sacrifice himself because the collective told him to. There are many examples of societies and organizations that worked that way, such societies are collective societies. Military is the most common example, they are often run as a collectivist organization, most soldiers aren't there because they want to or they believe in the war, they are there because they support their country or they were forced to support their country against their will by authoritarian collectivism. And they wouldn't go and support their other country if they were paid more since they are there just to support their country, those are mercenaries. Our capitalist societies aren't like that at all, we are so individualist that people like you don't even understand what it means to not be individualist. The closest to collectivism in USA wouldn't be corporations, but national anthems, school children saying the pledge, religion etc.
- bergen 3y ago
  Hospitals, Daycare, Schools, Social Work, Police, Fire Departments, Puclic Infrastructure, ... would fall apart in minutes if this would be mindset there.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    No, the mindset there is that workers wants money, just like everywhere else. Not sure why you think otherwise. If you mean that humans sometimes do more than the bare minimum, sure they do that. But that is an inherent part of humans, that has nothing to do with individualism or collectivist systems, humans do that in all systems, that is a part of the value of a human worker and why you pay them to work for you.
    - bergen 3y ago
      >No, the mindset there is that workers wants money, just like everywhere else. Not sure why you think otherwise. Because I know people that work there, and money surely isn't the first reason you are teaching a bunch of brats while having parts of the public look down on you if you can easily get double the amount somewhere outside of the field. Same for political work, crowdsourcing, .. People take gratification in doing something that matters to society. Yes, they want to survive, but they are quite often not doing it for the money, the money is a nice bonus and enables to do it full-time, but that is not always the reason you do it. Also you are goalpost moving, you said first they are only doing it only for themselves not for "the company", and people often do it for the institution that employs them. Not because they are paid, but because they believe they are doing something that matters.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        Lets say an equivalent company with similar culture and people offered twice the salary, how many would say no? People saying yes in that situation are not there for the collective, they are there for their own sake first and foremost. The collective is an afterthought since they abandon it the instant a better opportunity appears. That would apply to those teachers and doctors and nurses as well, almost all of them would gladly abandon their current kids/patients to go help other kids/patients if they were paid twice the salary. That is how we know they aren't there for the collective good of the organization, they just care about doing something good at any place with no feelings for that particular collective. If you mean that people are helpful etc, then that is a completely different thing from them actually caring enough about a particular organization.
- lupire 3y ago
  This is absurdly reductionist. You can equally say that in a collectivist society everyone contributed for the sake of themselves and not for the greater good of the collective, to avoid being shunned and starved. Individuals are always individualist unless they get lobotomized. The question of governance is how to manipulate that individualism to good ends.

Do you truely believe google, OpenAI or Ford are the product of a single person?

by bergen 3y ago

Do you truely believe google, OpenAI or Ford are the product of a single person?

Everyone contributed for the sake of themselves and not for the greater good of the company, that is what individualism is.

hef19898 3y ago
Ypu onoy have collegues like that? Sounds quite toxic.
- Jensson 3y ago
  You have colleagues that would continue to work if they no longer got paid? Rats jump ship in an individualistic system, in a collectivist system you expect the rats to sacrifice themselves to save the whole. Managers often tries to sell you on the collective so you work harder and demand less pay, but that is just him as an individual trying to get more out of you that doesn't mean it actually works like a collective.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    I have collegues who care about their work quality, and the impact their work has in their colleuges work. In short, they care about more than just a pay check and increasing that pay check. Like in non-selfcentered egomaniacs.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      But the main reason they are there is someone paid them to be there. Of course humans like to do good, so why not do good while getting paid, but the glue for the whole system is individualism, that is what makes all the workers go to work every day so it is what keeps them together. Remove the pay and all the workers scatters and move to different places in almost every case. Or in other words, that is an individualistic organization. > care about their work quality, and the impact their work has in their colleuges work Yeah, they care about their own ideals, not the organization itself. They can care about their coworkers, but they don't care about Wallmarts bottomline. So as you see, this individualistic organization can still draw from the power of human collectivist needs, so you get the best of both worlds, you get the collectivist goodness at small scale and the greed that glues together them and make them power through even when they are too tired to care about the collective.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        What, no! In any system people have to work to live: food, housing and such cost money. Doing "good" has nithing to do with it, and I never said that. The question is, do you care about more than the monthly pay check for something you pass most of your day doing or not? What keeps the workers showing up to work is the need to live. What keeps them at a particular place is a myriad of things. Individualism is not part of that. And why do you go immediately to "remove the pay"? There is quite some territory between working for free and not valueing a sufficient salary above all else. Funny so, how everybody working in a sector withbstrong labour unions is basically making more, for less hours, on average than those without them. Seems individualism is a great way to devide and conquer for people holding all the power, because once peoole are convinced individualism is better than cooperation, they voluntarily devide themselves.
        Jensson 3y ago
        > What keeps the workers showing up to work is the need to live. What keeps them at a particular place is a myriad of things. Individualism is not part of that. Lets say an equivalent company with similar culture and people offered twice the salary, how many would say no? People saying yes in that situation are not there for the collective, they are there for their own sake first and foremost. The collective is an afterthought since they abandon it the instant a better opportunity appears.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    I think it's more comparable to say "You have colleagues that would continue to work even if they got a better paying job offer?". A purely individualistic mindset would take whatever gets them more money for less hours. Someone staying despite that must have some sort of collectivist mindset that is non-financial qualities of life. Be it the company, the peers, the problem space, etc.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Some people should really read up on Pawlow's pyramid. Money isn't everything...
      - Jensson 3y ago
        I didn't say they only cared about money, but that they stayed for their own reasons and not for the sake of the company. If they find the work at one place less demanding they might take that instead, but that is an individualistic reason as well.
        throw4847285 3y ago
        You've made the rookie mistake of reducing the concept of self-interest to anything somebody does because they want to, and thus making egoism tautologically true. You can convince people that radically different things are in their self-interest, from joining hands and singing Kumbaya to Genocide. The notion of self-interest (or I guess in your case individualism, which is even shakier) is an empty vessel you can fill with nearly anything.
        Jensson 3y ago
        > You've made the rookie mistake of reducing the concept of self-interest to anything somebody does because they want to, and thus making egoism tautologically true. No, that isn't the same thing. A collectivist would do things he hates and he doesn't believe in personally because the collective wants him to do it. He would sacrifice himself because the collective told him to. There are many examples of societies and organizations that worked that way, such societies are collective societies. Military is the most common example, they are often run as a collectivist organization, most soldiers aren't there because they want to or they believe in the war, they are there because they support their country or they were forced to support their country against their will by authoritarian collectivism. And they wouldn't go and support their other country if they were paid more since they are there just to support their country, those are mercenaries. Our capitalist societies aren't like that at all, we are so individualist that people like you don't even understand what it means to not be individualist. The closest to collectivism in USA wouldn't be corporations, but national anthems, school children saying the pledge, religion etc.
bergen 3y ago
Hospitals, Daycare, Schools, Social Work, Police, Fire Departments, Puclic Infrastructure, ... would fall apart in minutes if this would be mindset there.
- Jensson 3y ago
  No, the mindset there is that workers wants money, just like everywhere else. Not sure why you think otherwise. If you mean that humans sometimes do more than the bare minimum, sure they do that. But that is an inherent part of humans, that has nothing to do with individualism or collectivist systems, humans do that in all systems, that is a part of the value of a human worker and why you pay them to work for you.
  - bergen 3y ago
    >No, the mindset there is that workers wants money, just like everywhere else. Not sure why you think otherwise. Because I know people that work there, and money surely isn't the first reason you are teaching a bunch of brats while having parts of the public look down on you if you can easily get double the amount somewhere outside of the field. Same for political work, crowdsourcing, .. People take gratification in doing something that matters to society. Yes, they want to survive, but they are quite often not doing it for the money, the money is a nice bonus and enables to do it full-time, but that is not always the reason you do it. Also you are goalpost moving, you said first they are only doing it only for themselves not for "the company", and people often do it for the institution that employs them. Not because they are paid, but because they believe they are doing something that matters.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Lets say an equivalent company with similar culture and people offered twice the salary, how many would say no? People saying yes in that situation are not there for the collective, they are there for their own sake first and foremost. The collective is an afterthought since they abandon it the instant a better opportunity appears. That would apply to those teachers and doctors and nurses as well, almost all of them would gladly abandon their current kids/patients to go help other kids/patients if they were paid twice the salary. That is how we know they aren't there for the collective good of the organization, they just care about doing something good at any place with no feelings for that particular collective. If you mean that people are helpful etc, then that is a completely different thing from them actually caring enough about a particular organization.
lupire 3y ago
This is absurdly reductionist. You can equally say that in a collectivist society everyone contributed for the sake of themselves and not for the greater good of the collective, to avoid being shunned and starved. Individuals are always individualist unless they get lobotomized. The question of governance is how to manipulate that individualism to good ends.