Toxic Leaders On The Rise And Taking Society Down

[Jaguar]

I never said stop trying to improve, I am saying at some point one group will try to claim authority over another group. Then purging of different ideas occure. Then we are back to square one, with one group of thought dominating everything, even if it is wrong. So really, "truth" is also dictated by the winner of ideas in a social setting. The actual truth never mattered. Its all about how many people believe something.

The problem isn't in how we think, but how we deal with different thoughts outside of our own, that we disagree with. Humans generally demonize the outgroup, and rationalize unfounded beliefs as to why they could possibly believe it. That there, lies in the problems. Humans stopped seeing people as humans. They only see them as flaws, or something that is stupid/needs to be educated. Instead of respecting them as an individual of equal quality, and intellect.

Groups. You and AC are obsessed with referring to groups of people. Ingroup. Outgroup. Us. Them. We. They. Who gives a shit? A populist's wet dream: sowing division.

 

[Maou]

Groups. You and AC are obsessed with referring to groups of people. Ingroup. Outgroup. Us. Them. We. They. Who gives a shit? A populist's wet dream: sowing division.

How else do you describe a collection of like minded individuals? You cannot talk about society without some classification and organization. It is otherwise impossible to address it. And how in the fuck is that at all related to Populism?

Just look at history, and tell me people don't sort themselves into sides naturally. I'd say the failure to recognize ingroups and outgroups is exactly why we have hatred and division. Humans are not biologically designed to live in societies to begin with. They are designed for family structures around 5 or so people. It's why everone gets nihilistic and depressed due to the loss of intrinsic purpose in life. Our biology has not caught up to our societal evolution.

 

[Coriolis]

How else do you describe a collection of like minded individuals? You cannot talk about society without some classification and organization. It is otherwise impossible to address it. And how in the fuck is that at all related to Populism?

Just look at history, and tell me people don't sort themselves into sides naturally. I'd say the failure to recognize ingroups and outgroups is exactly why we have hatred and division. Humans are not biologically designed to live in societies to begin with. They are designed for family structures around 5 or so people. It's why everone gets nihilistic and depressed due to the loss of intrinsic purpose in life. Our biology has not caught up to our societal evolution.

Well, I would start by determining membership in a "collection of like-minded individuals" by looking at what people think or value, not the color of their skin, the country their ancestors hailed from, or similar factors. Treating demographic groups as if they all think and value the same things is simplistic and impedes real progress. It is more accurate to generalize based on some chosen affiliation, like profession, hobby, etc. The problem with bigotry isn't that it recognizes differences among people, it is that it makes unwarranted assumptions based on those differences.

 

[Maou]

Well, I would start by determining membership in a "collection of like-minded individuals" by looking at what people think or value, not the color of their skin, the country their ancestors hailed from, or similar factors. Treating demographic groups as if they all think and value the same things is simplistic and impedes real progress. It is more accurate to generalize based on some chosen affiliation, like profession, hobby, etc. The problem with bigotry isn't that it recognizes differences among people, it is that it makes unwarranted assumptions based on those differences.

This should all be a given, and in and out groups will still exist. Example: Me, vs you and Jaguar right now in this discussion. You are assuming I did not think of these things due to how I talk in general statements. Generalized or not, there will always be sides.

I am also more talking about ideas, and not necessarily the physical reality. There are in and outgroups of ideas. We so naturally assemble in them to whenever there is a side to be taken in anything. You will naturally ally with people, who think like you. And just as easily leave the group when they do not. It isn't static. You don't have to agree with everything a group stands for, to be part of it as well. You are using the ingroup in a mutural relationship to further your values and beliefs against an outgroup.

 

[Jaguar]

How else do you describe a collection of like minded individuals?

Sweetheart, I have met one person in my entire life who comes close to thinking like me, and that was a doctor at Mayo Clinic. I've never met anyone like him before or since. Secondly, I volunteered for a psych experiment when I was a freshman in college. I was among a handful of people who passed. What were they testing for? People who succumb to peer pressure. I was flabbergasted at how susceptible people were to it. Still am. So, do tell, what exactly are like-minded individuals? Or could it be you just tend to paint people with broad strokes, believing they all think A, B, and C are true when in reality they do not - merely a flawed assumption on your part that you perhaps refuse to consider.

Why are you interested in so-called "like-minded individuals" anyway?

You cannot talk about society without some classification and organization.

Ah, yes. " Irma, them thar coons are at it ughin sterrrrrrrring up trubbbble." What in the hell would we do without classification in society?

It is otherwise impossible to address it.

For you, apparently.

And how in the fuck is that at all related to Populism?

That's your job. Learn.

Just look at history, and tell me people don't sort themselves into sides naturally.

Mmm. History. Emmett Till. Don't you just love 'sides'? It wasn't his natural choice, someone put him on a side and refused to allow him to cross.

 

[Earl Grey]

This should all be a given, and in and out groups will still exist. Example: Me, vs you and Jaguar right now in this discussion. You are assuming I did not think of these things due to how I talk in general statements. Generalized or not, there will always be sides.

I am also more talking about ideas, and not necessarily the physical reality. There are in and outgroups of ideas. We so naturally assemble in them to whenever there is a side to be taken in anything. You will naturally ally with people, who think like you. And just as easily leave the group when they do not. It isn't static. You don't have to agree with everything a group stands for, to be part of it as well. You are using the ingroup in a mutural relationship to further your values and beliefs against an outgroup.

Ideas are ideas and all, but the problem is where does it lead? You have mentioned points of views and opinions here, but I found myself wondering why you were stating them. They aren't against the rules or the topic, obviously, but on their own can be confusing in terms of what kind of intent you possess or what do you expect to happen. Are you cautioning others? Are you saying to do, or not do something? Are you discouraging or encouraging a specific approach? You define things in overgeneralizations that sometimes take away from the specific issue that is being addressed without actually answering anything or coming to a consensus- like this post here, unless you are tying this back to educating people on how to deal with issues in the OP, it's veering into the topic of groupthink, which isn't what the OP is asking for- OP is asking for education. Groupthink is another thing in entirely. As I said in an earlier reply: yes, you are pulling out potential issues and attempting to define them (with various degrees of success). Either way; okay, this and that happens. So, now what? I am in discontent with your responses so far.

We can sit around and define issues and stances in our society all day, but it would be help if you were more specific as well in your questions, such as this one: "What do you do when you need to remove said something of value for "progress", because you value that progress/end result and think it better than what the other side values?" where are you seeing an issue? Please specify- otherwise, it is an empty question because it refers to an issue that may not exist or is irrelevant. What you have said have so far come across as some kind of passive contemplative nihilism that provides no new answers, only a presumption of eventual failure- at best, you are just pointing out the obvious: "But it won't be perfect." My question is: then what? What are you proposing, if you are proposing anything?

(the answer to the quoted is something I have already mentioned in an equally general statement: People change and evolve, and so do their needs. What you say should not be a deterrent to the act of teaching in itself- people have to be taught, and they have to learn.)

 

[Jaguar]

Ingroup and outgroup ideas. WTF?

 

[Maou]

Ideas are ideas and all, but the problem is where does it lead? You have mentioned points of views and opinions here, but I found myself wondering why you were stating them. They aren't against the rules or the topic, obviously, but on their own can be confusing in terms of what kind of intent you possess or what do you expect to happen. Are you cautioning others? Are you saying to do, or not do something? Are you discouraging or encouraging a specific approach? You define things in overgeneralizations that sometimes take away from the specific issue that is being addressed without actually answering anything or coming to a consensus- like this post here, unless you are tying this back to educating people on how to deal with issues in the OP, it's veering into the topic of groupthink, which isn't what the OP is asking for- OP is asking for education. Groupthink is another thing in entirely. As I said in an earlier reply: yes, you are pulling out potential issues and attempting to define them (with various degrees of success). Either way; okay, this and that happens. So, now what? I am in discontent with your responses so far.

We can sit around and define issues and stances in our society all day, but it would be help if you were more specific as well in your questions, such as this one: "What do you do when you need to remove said something of value for "progress", because you value that progress/end result and think it better than what the other side values?" where are you seeing an issue? Please specify- otherwise, it is an empty question because it refers to an issue that may not exist or is irrelevant. What you have said have so far come across as some kind of passive contemplative nihilism that provides no new answers, only a presumption of eventual failure- at best, you are just pointing out the obvious: "But it won't be perfect." My question is: then what? What are you proposing, if you are proposing anything?

(the answer to the quoted is something I have already mentioned in an equally general statement: People change and evolve, and so do their needs. What you say should not be a deterrent to the act of teaching in itself- people have to be taught, and they have to learn.)

I am trying to explain why things are the way they are, in reality, in society, and with people. You can take that as caution. What you do with that information is entirely up to you. I am not one to preach how to live one's life. I firmly believe in doing what one believes, regardless of what other people think. Even if I think that way is wrong in my own personal opinion. I just wish other people would accept how I see things equally, even if they disagree with me. I don't like arguing and defending it, but I ultimately cannot see it any other way. I also don't intend to generalize. It just happens, because I have a hard time expressing what I mean in its full. The ideas I am trying to express, are held back by my own inarticulate way of speaking. Just like words never do a picture justice. I have tried to get better, it is just difficult. I am also held back by my own insecurities and flaws to put enough effort into it as well. Even if I managed to explain it eloquently, it will still be rejected regardless. Because it is such a fundamentally different view point than most peoples.

I was only presenting the boundaries and scope of the issue the OP is trying to quantify into action. I am trying to express as well, that education won't solve the problem with people being manipulated or taught certain things. These things will ultimately return, and exist. It is extremely difficult to pass down the actual wisdom of our ancestors. Of critical thinking, and awareness. Because you have to remember, that education doesn't make you smart. You can be taught all the things in the world, but never learn how to use them and apply them. You cannot teach critical thinking easily, because it makes one a pariah. This is antithetical to the human nature of social status and cohesion.

What I meant about value and progress, is the dismantling another group's ideas, to make way for one's own because they are incompatible. Aka, an atheist society seeks to dismantle God, because God is incompatible with their way to doing things. It never mattered who was right, even if there was no way to prove it. We are dominated by mob rule, in the social sphere. This affects everything from politics to science. Aka, the "Authority" over what is socially and logically acceptable, despite the fact it might be erroneous. Despite the fact everyone could be wrong all together. Yet society must carry on, and continue to evolve. Yet even in evolution, it suffers the same fate as animals do when they evolve in a way that is too niche and the times change. They die out. Evolution doesn't favor the smartest, most objective, or the strongest. It favors the adaptable. Adaptability, is where we need to focus our ability to function in society. A lot of people think they can stop people from falling between the cracks in society, and blame the system when it fails to help everyone. WE must accept this fact, as unavoidable. Our society and education should be built up with the idea of helping as many people as possible succeed, not stopping everything because some people failed. We simply need to teach survival skills, and who even has the right to tell people how to live their lives? No one does, and no one should. Let people die how they want. You cannot save everyone, and people really need to learn that. Empathy is a double edged sword, and right now, western society is in an abusive relationship because of it. It has put so much burden on itself, that everyone is going to go down with it when it fails.

 

[Maou]

Sweetheart, I have met one person in my entire life who comes close to thinking like me, and that was a doctor at Mayo Clinic. I've never met anyone like him before or since. Secondly, I volunteered for a psych experiment when I was a freshman in college. I was among a handful of people who passed. What were they testing for? People who succumb to peer pressure. I was flabbergasted at how susceptible people were to it. Still am. So, do tell, what exactly are like-minded individuals? Or could it be you just tend to paint people with broad strokes, believing they all think A, B, and C are true when in reality they do not - merely a flawed assumption on your part that you perhaps refuse to consider.

Cool story

Why are you interested in so-called "like-minded individuals" anyway?

It is pretty simple Jaguar, people who agree with you. Even if you disagree with them later, its those who agree with you in any said argument.

Ah, yes. " Irma, them thar coons are at it ughin sterrrrrrrring up trubbbble." What in the hell would we do without classification in society?

How do you address a group of people, that cannot be named individually? What is that, you can't address 10,000 people by name and represent each of their beliefs individually? It is almost as if it would be easier to address them as a group.

For you, apparently. That's your job. Learn. Mmm. History. Emmett Till. Don't you just love 'sides'? It wasn't his natural choice, someone put him on a side and refused to allow him to cross.

Okay boomer

 

[Jaguar]

I am trying to explain why things are the way they are, in reality, in society, and with people.

I'ma gunna tell ewe what realitee is. There is only won, didncha no?

Okay boomer

Okay bigot.

 

[Coriolis]

This should all be a given, and in and out groups will still exist. Example: Me, vs you and Jaguar right now in this discussion. You are assuming I did not think of these things due to how I talk in general statements. Generalized or not, there will always be sides.

I am also more talking about ideas, and not necessarily the physical reality. There are in and outgroups of ideas. We so naturally assemble in them to whenever there is a side to be taken in anything. You will naturally ally with people, who think like you. And just as easily leave the group when they do not. It isn't static. You don't have to agree with everything a group stands for, to be part of it as well. You are using the ingroup in a mutural relationship to further your values and beliefs against an outgroup.

This is becoming vague almost to the point of tautology, and I didn't need to assume your thoughts to explain mine. You can decide whether you agree with them or not. Even in the realm of ideas, it is simplistic to assume animosity among people with different opinions, or monolithic thought within a group sharing similar opinions.

 

[Maou]

This is becoming vague almost to the point of tautology, and I didn't need to assume your thoughts to explain mine. You can decide whether you agree with them or not. Even in the realm of ideas, it is simplistic to assume animosity among people with different opinions, or monolithic thought within a group sharing similar opinions.

Kinda hard to keep track of everything too, when everyone wants to talk to me at once.

 

[Jaguar]

This is becoming vague almost to the point of tautology, and I didn't need to assume your thoughts to explain mine. You can decide whether you agree with them or not. Even in the realm of ideas, it is simplistic to assume animosity among people with different opinions, or monolithic thought within a group sharing similar opinions.

That was one of the reasons I posted a video of Pres. GW Bush's speech at John Lewis's funeral yesterday.

"Listen, John and I had our disagreements of course, but in the America John Lewis fought for and the America I believe in, differences of opinion are inevitable elements and evidence of democracy in action."

 

[VILLANELLE]

I have to agree with this post .... I'm stoned and opened another tab and any chance for a good serious reply is gone. But, I agree. I think people are afraid of what they don't understand. They are afraid of what they don't know and haven't experienced. If it doesn't look or feel familiar, they don't want it. Which is sad and outdated because the world is changing, and people who fail to adapt are even sadder. Racism, sexism, misogyny, bigotry it's all terrible and there's so many micro-things involved too, much like an umbrella.

And above all, some people think wearing a mask for your safety is somehow politicial and fake. I'm a bit too stoned to really go deep and use better wordage. There really was more I wanted to contribute, but that's... part.

 

[Jaguar]

Smoke more. You did fine.

 

[anticlimatic]

Yeah, I agree, more practical things should be taught in school. Finances / money management, the laws and legal rights where they live, etc. We have physical education/health requirements...why don't we have mental education/health requirements? Financial education/health?

I can see your point in indoctrinating people through a system that way, and systems do often have a pattern of becoming more corrupt over time. I think that's in part because corrupt people are attracted to power, but regardless of whether that's actually why, the indoctrination is indeed a vulnerability. We've already seen some issues in schools with misinformation about historical events and figures, etc.

One problem I see in this though is that I think that a lot of people are already resistant to influence in general, thus causing soooo so many people to get stuck in unhealthy behaviors and decisions, repeating the same issues throughout their lives (which is also in part caused by lack of education). Without knowing what to look for, people might just become fearful of or rebellious against outside influence, including in negative ways, just simply because it's influence, which is what we're already seeing with the refusal to wear masks. While I do believe being sheeple / having a cult mentality is a real problem that should be addressed, I don't think independent thinking necessarily addresses the root of the issue enough, and a lot of people may think they're making their own choices and that they're simply agreeing or showing support or something without being aware that they're being influenced. I think it's important for people to start making more informed/educated decisions, too, or to be aware of when/how they're being influenced, but that just ties back into people being more educated about mental health.

If part of independent thinking involved educating yourself more, then you have the problem where there will be a lot of faulty resources and misinformation that is ingrained in people who don't educate themselves properly, or in various resources put out there to mislead others deliberately. I think that if colleges/universities can handle classroom education on psychology, then schools in general should be able to also, no? I just think it's important for people to be unified in having knowledge of the most accurate information available. Furthermore, a lot of people wouldn't even value or see the importance of mental health education. You'd have to basically have a society that values education, and frankly...I don't think we have that. I think people mostly just live their lives and try to enjoy themselves unless they're fueled by pretentiousness often times. A genuine curiosity or desire for education isn't all that common, and people would have to be motivated to self-teach if going the independent thinking without standardized education route.


I also think there's a key factor at play here, and that is that in this case you're educating people about how to identify how people (narcissists, etc.) manipulate, control, etc...thus, you're essentially equipping people to recognize corrupt influence (which would backfire quite a bit if they were also a corrupt influence). I think there'd be so many educators involved that it'd be difficult to streamline corruption into it, especially since they'd be among so many others who would be trained to recognize those things (and teach others how to).

I think the problems you cite are undeniable, and your solutions are reasoned, logical, and even practical- good kernels for seeding potential change in public school policy and curriculum. I myself like simple solutions- as a "mechanic" by nature they are often the best solutions, in my opinion. Simple solutions, predicated on as much complicated data as possible- including, in this case, data on effective methods of learning, environmental influences (which include aspects of genetic predisposition) and the structure and nature of formal systems themselves. There are many ways to fix a problem, many ways to approach it. The more data we can include in our considerations, the better our solutions will be.

In regards to this subject, there are some data points that confound a bit. Corruption, for example. While (anything is) possible under the right circumstances, I don't think the greatest corruption threat comes from corrupting the message in and of itself to students from teachers. The more likely, and typical of government programs, corruption threat comes for the sake of money at the cost of effectiveness. I'd be more concerned the programs ultimately melted into a nearly functionless effort of extremely low impact, just for the sake of keeping money flowing to particular pockets- the way the quality of public schooling has tanked for the sake of passing standardized mandated testing. Resources being finite, it would be a shame to waste any of them on ineffectual ventures. Tacticians might work to stave off corruption of that variety, but it is a concern I'd leave on the table.

Another confounding data point is the nature of learning. It's hard to teach people things they don't have direct experience with. Interest tends to be superficial and fleeting, and in a classroom it can create an infectious group apathy or distraction. The few students who might suddenly recognize what was being taught as immediately pertinent to their situation might get lost in the sea of their own peers who laugh-at and dismiss it. You can beat a few things into kids heads- like don't play in traffic- but most of life has to be learned through direct experimentation I think. Maybe I'm wrong. I think history repeats itself, on a grand scale, because even though the lessons are there in the history books for people to read and empower themselves with, it just doesn't matter. Every generation has to learn its own lessons- most of them the same lessons older generations already learned and tried in vain to pass on. Most people don't learn anything they truly need to know until after something happens, and we conduct psychological autopsies on it. How many people do you know who know/care at all about narcissistic personality disorder that didn't acquire a learning interest in the subject after having encountered and been victimized by one? We have so much data to parse just from our own experiences, that projecting possible future experiences and attempting to learn how to deal with all of those possible projections is often just outside the scope of our tiny wads of grey matter.

One area I tend to break from conventional psychology is often in favor of a person's natural inclinations, predating learned behavior. These might be thoughts that only I entertain, so feel free to disregard them as contentious and still within the realm of mystery. I don't think every person is a completely blank slate, and I don't believe every person is good until made evil by the world around them. Innocent, perhaps- but not good. Children are innocent sadists in my experience, and distinct personalities seem to be formed seemingly arbitrarily at birth. If you watch a baby grow up, especially multiple babies, you know that parts of their personality are present since the day they arrive- prior to any nurturing influence. These seem to ripple outward into variable distinctions in preference, behavior, and ultimately learning style- which must be accounted for in the creation of any system designed to target all public school students as a unified demographic. Stubborn types might understand the nature of standing up for ones self, but gentler follower types might fail to hear the lesson at all if a more powerful voice in their lives trumped it.

It's hard to teach people things. Even two fully capable parents dedicating as much of their time and resources as possible to raise a kid correctly can struggle to pull it off. The only way I can conceive of addressing the issue is just to build better people from the start, but that's the self-terminating catch isn't it? Confounding all around.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It's a hell of a catch that catch 22

It's the best there is.

 

[VILLANELLE]

I'm just wanting to add that, like.. Humans needs to be kinder to each other. The world is changing, and yeah everything is political these days... and it shouldn't be. Because there are certain things that are getting politicized for the wrong reasons. Nobody wants to listen and grow and change. Everyone has their differences, and differences are fine, but when you harm another person because of their views or your views or whatever, that's where it draws a line. And I assume that's been happning for a long time.

People are tired and angry, me included. I used to think that being a feminist, because I'm not going to feel bad for bringing this up! I deserve to take up space! -- Ok, so, I used to think being feminist meant just being glad to be a girl, and to be for abortion, I thought that was the extent of my opennness. I'm still learning, I'm far from perfect, but I've learned a lot about myself over the years. Feminism and anti-sexism and many other isms need to be more inclusive...

I really meant to say more but I'm stoned again and trying to out-do myself in a reply.

 

[Mind Maverick]

From Milgram's experiment:

"What people cannot be counted on is to realize that a seemingly benevolent authority is in fact malevolent, even when they are faced with overwhelming evidence which suggests that this authority is indeed malevolent. Hence, the underlying cause for the subjects' striking conduct could well be conceptual, and not the alleged 'capacity of man to abandon his humanity ... as he merges his unique personality into larger institutional structures."'

Psychological. Education. Is. Important.
Holy shit, how can we be so blind to the existence of a deficit when it's as destructive to society as it is?

EDIT:
What I mean by this is that people need to learn how to recognize said malevolence (including in authority).

 

[Mind Maverick]

More about toxic leaders being on the rise. A bit of insight into how they get into leadership and why it's on the rise right now.

Ramani Durvasula: Narcissism and Its Discontents | TED Talk