That's... strange. Is it only Catholics, or just any non-Anglican?
Just RCs, its a legacy of a lot of history.
That's... strange. Is it only Catholics, or just any non-Anglican?
Just RCs, its a legacy of a lot of history.
No one needs to "rise to power," to make a positive contribution to the world.
I like to think that I transform my corner of the world simply by example, by living the way I do. I seem to give other people ideas about how to live more sensibly, manageably, and in keeping with one's own principles and wishes.
If a RC were to win the election? What then?
That.
I also find that the people who want to lead and be in charge are usually the last people who should be allowed to be in power.
It's the humble people who have already proven themselves to be efficacious in their daily lives, who make a difference regardless of where they are, and who don't consider themselves worthy to make decisions for lots of other people can SOMETIMES be the best people to hold power.
There's too much damage done by ambitious people who truly do not have a freaking clue about life, and they're especially dangerous because they WANT to meddle and impose decisions on others and remake the world in their unrestrained image.
Yeah, I wouldnt generalise like that.
Yeah, I guess you generalize in lots of other ways?
(And quite the master of the "Oh, I just disagree, so there" rebuttal.)
This was inherent in what I said, but let me state it even more clearly for you, since you don't seem to care to pick things apart:
- People who want power are far more apt to abuse it. Contrastingly, they might still have personality traits that allow them to be effective in power use.
- People who don't want power will typically think more about using it. Contrastingly, some of them won't use power effectively if they are in charge.
So there's some Catch-22 involved.
This.That.
I also find that the people who want to lead and be in charge are usually the last people who should be allowed to be in power.
I'll be clear that I want a very democratic order, one in which personal responsibility is a norm and practically everyone participates, as opposed to the managerialism which I think typifies politics at the moment but until then I'd like to be leader.
It's at the very least naive to presume that anybody's particular utopian vision is implementable or sustainable or even actually an improvement and particularly so when that vision would place demands on the actions or values of large groups of people.
- People who want power are far more apt to abuse it. Contrastingly, they might still have personality traits that allow them to be effective in power use.
- People who don't want power will typically think more about using it. Contrastingly, some of them won't use power effectively if they are in charge
Yeah, I dont think anyboy's particular utopian vision is implementable, mine is though and I'm not going to place demands on the actions or values of large groups of people, I'm going to place demands on everyone, including people who arent even born yet.
Nah. You can also say people who strive for power are more likely to have leadership traits than those who never even dreamt of being in a leadership position.
Disclaimer before anybody starts pointing fingers: this is theoretical, I don't think I'd be a capable leader any time soon.
Nah. You can also say people who strive for power are more likely to have leadership traits than those who never even dreamt of being in a leadership position.
- People who don't want power will typically think more about using it. Contrastingly, some of them won't use power effectively if they are in charge.
So there's some Catch-22 involved.
“Sometimesâ€, but very rarely. I’d imagine that being an exceptional leader is similar to being an exceptional painter or an exceptional anything else for that matter, in that it requires not only a passion for what you’re actually doing but also hundreds of hours of practice. The art student who doesn’t care, loathes what he does, and doesn’t consider any of his talents to be “worthy†doesn’t strike me as the next Van Gogh.That.
I also find that the people who want to lead and be in charge are usually the last people who should be allowed to be in power.
It's the humble people who have already proven themselves to be efficacious in their daily lives, who make a difference regardless of where they are, and who don't consider themselves worthy to make decisions for lots of other people can SOMETIMES be the best people to hold power.
Such people are only able to cause damage because of the apathetic followers who sway in their name.There's too much damage done by ambitious people who truly do not have a freaking clue about life, and they're especially dangerous because they WANT to meddle and impose decisions on others and remake the world in their unrestrained image.
Few people are going to emulate a lone, obscure individual. Generally in a culture in which what we refer to as “kindness†is not widely practiced, such behavior is only seen as a form of weakness. A few deviants aren’t going to change a set of norms. Not through simple practice at least.yes. Changing the world through self-investment and "relational living" rather than imposing power on others from above.
The vast majority of individuals in the modern world who wield a large degree of power tend to obtain it through years, if not decades, of back breaking work. That’s part of the reason as to why there are virtually no teen and twenty-something CEOs of large corporations. The only real exception to this rule tend to be authority figures who don’t wield too much power to begin with. The managing fry cook of the local McDonald’s may, for instance, come into power through sheer luck and favoritism, but few people in the modern world end up in any considerable form of power without being “driven to the limits of their strength†multiple times.People need to go through a growing and changing process before they can be entrusted with power. That means that instinctively domineering people, unless they have some sort of tremendous upbringing, need to be broken and driven to the limits of their strength. Only after they are broken can they really be trusted to understand the limits of power and what it can or cannot accomplish; and at that point, now they are more of a proper vessel for power.
“Contrivedâ€, though it may be, the experiment has been replicated more than five times since and is regarded as one of the more influential one’s in psychological history. If all else fails there’s also the Asch Conformity Experiment which basically proves the same thing. That too has been replicated several times and is regarded as an authoritative study.That experiment was far more complicated than what you're making it sound, and it occurred in a very contrived environment.
People didn't just rebel because they were leaders, there were other factors involved; and they didn't just follow because they were followers. Lauren Slater followed up with two of the subjects, one of them a rebeller and one a follower, and it was kind of ironic that they were both impacted to live their lives differently because of the experience... the one who never challenged things was struck to the core because of how he had behaved, and he went on to break out of the mode, give up a good career to do what he loved, came out instead of living a conventional life, and seemed to be really happy decades later (a true leader), whereas the one who rebelled ended up living a very conventional life.
“Sometimesâ€, but very rarely. I’d imagine that being an exceptional leader is similar to being an exceptional painter or an exceptional anything else for that matter, in that it requires not only a passion for what you’re actually doing but also hundreds of hours of practice. The art student who doesn’t care, loathes what he does, and doesn’t consider any of his talents to be “worthy†doesn’t strike me as the next Van Gogh.
Such people are only able to cause damage because of the apathetic followers who sway in their name.
Few people are going to emulate a lone, obscure individual. Generally in a culture in which what we refer to as “kindness†is not widely practiced, such behavior is only seen as a form of weakness. A few deviants aren’t going to change a set of norms. Not through simple practice at least.
The vast majority of individuals in the modern world who wield a large degree of power tend to obtain it through years, if not decades, of back breaking work.
That’s part of the reason as to why there are virtually no teen and twenty-something CEOs of large corporations. The only real exception to this rule tend to be authority figures who don’t wield too much power to begin with.
The managing fry cook of the local McDonald’s may, for instance, come into power through sheer luck and favoritism, but few people in the modern world end up in any considerable form of power without being “driven to the limits of their strength†multiple times.
“Contrivedâ€, though it may be, the experiment has been replicated more than five times since and is regarded as one of the more influential one’s in psychological history.
It's telling that the thread isn't titled "Who else dreams of making the world a better place?"Who else dreams of rising to power and transforming their country and possibly even the world for the better?