"... On Jul 20, 8:17 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: ..."
> I preferred Townsend's 'Up The Organisation' from about the same > time. I'd forgotten about Up The Organization (1970). It was a more popular book and far more accurate than PP, of which I only read part and considered it more of a satire on corporate bureaucracy. Up The Organization was a more serious exposition of the corporate world. Unfortunately hardly anyone took it to heart. To my thinking the most destructive part of governments, corporations and virtually any other organization or group is the tendency toward bureaucracy (which is pretty much what both PP and UTO are about). I have to figure that part of our problem as a species is our seemingly predominant self-destruct instinct. Over the years I've observed in many people in many situations (myself included) that we tend to behave -- for whatever reason -- another discussion there -- in a manner that leads to our own defeat. This is such a long-standing human trait that we have many names and nicknames and descriptions for it: cutting off our own nose to spite our face, telling a lie when the truth would serve us better, we have met the enemy and they are us. I'm sure you can think of a hundred more, but regardless, it does seem to be a very widespread human activity. Nowhere it this self- destructive nature more in evidence than in our politics. > What surprises me is the faith we put in leaders and the extent > to which we allow them to disproportionately reward themselves. That follows if you think about it. If our method of assessing and electing politicians is rife with ego, animosity, raw thoughtless emotion and every other character trait that is antithetical to reason and rationale, it follows that the politicians we elect into leadership positions would be much the same. Our politics and politicians are a reflection of the society and the individual. I know I make this reference in excess but it's my favorite: M. Twain - People get the sort of government they deserve. > In economic terms I think we have forgotten what real work is and become > a neurocracy (most 'work' is pretended). I'm not sure how you meant that other than via the modifying reference to pretended work. While the latter has validity and from my experience is usually connected to minimum wage jobs, union jobs and bureaucracies of any nature with a special emphasis on governmental bureaucracies, neurocracy is a valid area of scientific study. A paper entitled "What do Brodmann areas do? Or: Scanning the neurocracy" holds that cognitive neuroscience is committed to fusion of mind and brain under the concept of the neurocracy: the whole mind is the sum of the actions of myriad brainy parts. (http:// www.trincoll.edu/~dlloyd/brodmann.html) My take when I first read your post was that you don't count mental activity as real work, but I think I know better. I also think I know what you meant by neurocracy in the context you gave it: when someone works harder getting out of work than they otherwise would have worked. (Responsibility can be substituted for work.) Eh? > Palin Principle is spot on. The big mistake may be to think these leadership > roles are at all > useful. I'd modify that to: The big mistake may be thinking the people we put in leadership roles are responsible. I'd also say that leadership roles are pretty much necessary in any society. I don't see us (the species) achieving the state of mind necessary for true anarchy to work for another few millenia. I mean, from the people's point of view (vs the perspective from on high) the purpose of a leader is to take the reins and guide the followers to a commonly agreed upon goal. Part of that responsibility is relieving the citizens of having to expend time and effort seeing to things that are better left to a government or some other responsible entity. That should also be a leader's perspective but in many cases it presents as nothing more than pure ego gratification with no thought to the ethics, morality or responsibilities of the position. A classic example of this sort of politician is/was John Edwards. To me from the first time I saw him talking on tv, he was empty, vapid, willing to use any cause to further his own glory. I used to chuckle watching him preen himself on live tv. The sad part was that he had so many people fooled, but that's part and parcel of a democracy. You can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool a good portion of them long enough to make some good memories, even if you wind up in jail. I'll bet Bernie Madoff is having fun in spite of the life sentence.
