4 ms·

From your list of positions one might occupy, I find none appealing to me. Since I own the business I work at, does that automatically qualify me to be a sociop

From your list of positions one might occupy, I find none appealing to me. Since I own the business I work at, does that automatically qualify me to be a sociopath? Having nice work conditions works for the boss too. Who wants to own a crappy business? I want to go work somewhere nice, and if I am in charge of the place, I think it is then up to me to make it happen.

bravohippo 14y ago
>Since I own the business I work at, does that automatically qualify me to be a sociopath? No. The sociopaths are the ones who control the economic system and the bulk of the capital, who, if your company becomes worth anything, will make you an offer you can't refuse and you will no longer be an owner. If you refuse to be bought out due to some kind of lifestyle ideology, then you're clueless and suffering from Protestant Work Ethic brain damage. You're describing an instability. You are an instability. The laws of capitalism dictate that your situation as business owner should either set you up as a sociopath maximizing your outcome, or sell the company to a sociopath who can make more money using your company than you're able to make. If you then could retire but choose not to, you're clueless, because you're enthusiastic about being a cog in a dehumanizing capitalist machine. Only clueless people and sociopaths feel good about that. Clueless people like it because they have no clue, and sociopaths like it because power and destruction is what turns them on. Personally I just find that most people who willingly engage in commerce without a financial need to do so lack imagination. I do make exceptions for hacker types like pg who seem to believe they are subverting the system with their economic activity, but the line between being a subversive capitalist and being the most deluded sort of clueless person is very fuzzy.
- gregpilling 14y ago
  Wow. Now I have gone from a sociopath to clueless. Perhaps there are s subset of people that you have not met, or do not understand. I would identify with those people who enjoy work (I must suffer from Protestant Work Ethic brain damage, despite being an atheist), because when I do work I accomplish things, and this accomplishment makes me happy. Why this makes me a clueless sociopath I am not sure, but the several companies I have started in the last 23 years have at least let me live in modest comfort. I could have retired around 30 and lived of passive income but that is really quite boring. Maybe you should try starting a company since you know so much about it.
  - bravohippo 14y ago
    You asked the question. I answered according to the sociological system you asked about. Don't get offended by an academic exercise. His system is certainly wrong, but it does have a grain of truth.
rm445 14y ago
Well it suggests you are dedicated and a strategic thinker, but not very subordinate. Presumably in owning your company you have to forgo a certain amount of buddy-ness with your workers for the benefit of the company; that's what's being alluded to. The linked articles are quite interesting in their entirety: looking at binary values of being strategic, dedicated and subordinate has some interesting implications and avoids the suggestion of amorality and mental disfunction carried by the sociopath tag. One other claim of the articles is that for certain companies the investors are the (sociopathic) executives and the CxOs are middle-managers under a delusion. Not universal but again food for thought.
michaelochurch 14y ago
The MacLeod organization is dysfunctional and does not apply to all companies. This series of essays is about how not to get a MacLeod pyramid. It turns out to be a complicated topic not amenable to quick solutions. The short answer is... no, you're not a sociopath just because you own the business. Rank culture (valuing subordinacy above all) is the one with the most pronounced and rigid MacLeod structure. Tough culture (valuing dedication, often to extremes) tends to exist when the company gets a hard-on about culling low performers and Loser/Clueless stability breaks down... but a new proto-Sociopath set uses the enhanced performance standards to take and give bribes and run extortions and they become the new holders of rank. There are two good cultures-- guild and self-executive-- that don't have MacLeod tiers. I like the D&D concept of alignment. There's a moral spectrum (good, neutral, evil) and a civil one (lawful, neutral, evil). So there are 9 possible alignments. Most people and especially most organizations are true neutral (meaning neutral in both) in ideology, even if they tend toward the rank culture's lawful evil over time. The ideal "Organization Man" is morally neutral, and civilly neutral with regard to the greater society's laws, but lawful with respect to the organization's laws. Most organizations can find something to do with lawful and civilly neutral people, but have no idea how to handle the chaotic. MacLeod Losers tend toward civil neutrality. They're not chaotic enough to feel a need to break rules, but not lawful enough to care about rising in the company, unless they can get the hard currencies (compensation, more freedom, career progress) that actually matter. Lawful people, however, see important positions as a validation in themselves and seek them. MacLeod Clueless tend to be lawful. Some are lawful good, some are lawful evil; most are lawful neutral. MacLeod Sociopaths are the people who don't fit: they find the comfort of the Loser world to be false, and the delusions of the Clueless to be laughable. They tend to be chaotic, which creates an up-or-out time pressure on their organizational trajectories. This doesn't mean they're bad people. Chaotic good are the white-hat "good Sociopaths", and chaotic neutral tend to be gray-hatted but will usually try to be decent. Chaotic people rise in organizations because they have no other choice. They either need to get into an executive sinecure, or into a special, high-creativity role where their outsized talents (see: convexity) are an asset that overcomes their social deficits. However, evil people also rise. Neutral evil are the most capable, because they're fluent in law and chaos and have no strong pro- or anti-organizational bias. They can be chaotic when out of power and lawful when in it. However, lawful evil is perhaps the most virulent, because while neutral and chaotic evil can indulge in non-ambitious sadism, lawful evil are driven. So, organizations end up being run by a chaotic-or-evil set that needs to make itself look like something else, and society doesn't much like or understand them and calls them "sociopaths", but the most interesting subset (chaotic good, chaotic neutral) are not bad people.

bravohippo 14y ago

>Since I own the business I work at, does that automatically qualify me to be a sociopath? No. The sociopaths are the ones who control the economic system and the bulk of the capital, who, if your company becomes worth anything, will make you an offer you can't refuse and you will no longer be an owner. If you refuse to be bought out due to some kind of lifestyle ideology, then you're clueless and suffering from Protestant Work Ethic brain damage. You're describing an instability. You are an instability. The laws of capitalism dictate that your situation as business owner should either set you up as a sociopath maximizing your outcome, or sell the company to a sociopath who can make more money using your company than you're able to make. If you then could retire but choose not to, you're clueless, because you're enthusiastic about being a cog in a dehumanizing capitalist machine. Only clueless people and sociopaths feel good about that. Clueless people like it because they have no clue, and sociopaths like it because power and destruction is what turns them on. Personally I just find that most people who willingly engage in commerce without a financial need to do so lack imagination. I do make exceptions for hacker types like pg who seem to believe they are subverting the system with their economic activity, but the line between being a subversive capitalist and being the most deluded sort of clueless person is very fuzzy.

gregpilling 14y ago
Wow. Now I have gone from a sociopath to clueless. Perhaps there are s subset of people that you have not met, or do not understand. I would identify with those people who enjoy work (I must suffer from Protestant Work Ethic brain damage, despite being an atheist), because when I do work I accomplish things, and this accomplishment makes me happy. Why this makes me a clueless sociopath I am not sure, but the several companies I have started in the last 23 years have at least let me live in modest comfort. I could have retired around 30 and lived of passive income but that is really quite boring. Maybe you should try starting a company since you know so much about it.
- bravohippo 14y ago
  You asked the question. I answered according to the sociological system you asked about. Don't get offended by an academic exercise. His system is certainly wrong, but it does have a grain of truth.

rm445 14y ago

Well it suggests you are dedicated and a strategic thinker, but not very subordinate. Presumably in owning your company you have to forgo a certain amount of buddy-ness with your workers for the benefit of the company; that's what's being alluded to. The linked articles are quite interesting in their entirety: looking at binary values of being strategic, dedicated and subordinate has some interesting implications and avoids the suggestion of amorality and mental disfunction carried by the sociopath tag. One other claim of the articles is that for certain companies the investors are the (sociopathic) executives and the CxOs are middle-managers under a delusion. Not universal but again food for thought.

michaelochurch 14y ago

The MacLeod organization is dysfunctional and does not apply to all companies. This series of essays is about how not to get a MacLeod pyramid. It turns out to be a complicated topic not amenable to quick solutions. The short answer is... no, you're not a sociopath just because you own the business. Rank culture (valuing subordinacy above all) is the one with the most pronounced and rigid MacLeod structure. Tough culture (valuing dedication, often to extremes) tends to exist when the company gets a hard-on about culling low performers and Loser/Clueless stability breaks down... but a new proto-Sociopath set uses the enhanced performance standards to take and give bribes and run extortions and they become the new holders of rank. There are two good cultures-- guild and self-executive-- that don't have MacLeod tiers. I like the D&D concept of alignment. There's a moral spectrum (good, neutral, evil) and a civil one (lawful, neutral, evil). So there are 9 possible alignments. Most people and especially most organizations are true neutral (meaning neutral in both) in ideology, even if they tend toward the rank culture's lawful evil over time. The ideal "Organization Man" is morally neutral, and civilly neutral with regard to the greater society's laws, but lawful with respect to the organization's laws. Most organizations can find something to do with lawful and civilly neutral people, but have no idea how to handle the chaotic. MacLeod Losers tend toward civil neutrality. They're not chaotic enough to feel a need to break rules, but not lawful enough to care about rising in the company, unless they can get the hard currencies (compensation, more freedom, career progress) that actually matter. Lawful people, however, see important positions as a validation in themselves and seek them. MacLeod Clueless tend to be lawful. Some are lawful good, some are lawful evil; most are lawful neutral. MacLeod Sociopaths are the people who don't fit: they find the comfort of the Loser world to be false, and the delusions of the Clueless to be laughable. They tend to be chaotic, which creates an up-or-out time pressure on their organizational trajectories. This doesn't mean they're bad people. Chaotic good are the white-hat "good Sociopaths", and chaotic neutral tend to be gray-hatted but will usually try to be decent. Chaotic people rise in organizations because they have no other choice. They either need to get into an executive sinecure, or into a special, high-creativity role where their outsized talents (see: convexity) are an asset that overcomes their social deficits. However, evil people also rise. Neutral evil are the most capable, because they're fluent in law and chaos and have no strong pro- or anti-organizational bias. They can be chaotic when out of power and lawful when in it. However, lawful evil is perhaps the most virulent, because while neutral and chaotic evil can indulge in non-ambitious sadism, lawful evil are driven. So, organizations end up being run by a chaotic-or-evil set that needs to make itself look like something else, and society doesn't much like or understand them and calls them "sociopaths", but the most interesting subset (chaotic good, chaotic neutral) are not bad people.