The Psychology Thread

Yeah, more directly said, that. I mean, the implication of making hell for the subordinates is that you end up with a boss who is leading no one since they all left or prolly killed themselves.

Can't that come in degrees though? A person who really doesn't care about anyone or trust them, but at the same time recognises the needs of his subordinates to keep things going. He's not an idiot and is very self-aware.

Well, as a psychologist I may have a rather extreme view on it, considering osme might just say "Oh it is a personality thing"

But since you are asking me: No.

There are things that can be measured, given different levels, measured and such, and there are times where honestly it is not worth it to not classify it as any less or any more.

That is to say, since narcissism, psycopathy and a handful of other seriously rare and seriously dangerous disorders bring about severe consecuences to others or self,then as a psychologist measuring "just how harmful" is a little bit of a vanity thing. Unlike a virus or a bacteria, which you can cure and analyze its corpse or take samples, disorders are not something you either cure or analyze without handling.

Treatment starts immediately. Consequences are tried to be made more bearable, strategies are thaught, etc etc, but beyond there classifying serves little purpose unless you are deisgning some sort of specific therapy for a specific type.

I am vbeing very roundabout, I feel. Allow me to be as direct and laconic as possible in that specific subject:

It does not matter how narcissistic this person is. If they fall within the parameters that they can be diagnosed as a person with the narcissistic personality disorder, then allowing this person into a place where he can cause a lot of harm because of "levels" within is negligible despite how "less harmful than" this person can be.

"Actually the woman thing is not a thing about diversity quotas. It is about this being the preference of the jobs because in their experience men who join the QA job just used the QA experience to later move on to programming whereas women tend to stay there."

What your employer is doing is illegal. It's lawsuit city if anyone could ever prove it. You might want to mention that to your boss.

As for narcissistic/high functioning sociopaths in positions of responsibility- what you aren't considering is the question of what those people would do if they wern't given positions of responsibility. It's how we manage to stave off the road warrior apocalypse.

Not here.

Also...the answer to what the narcissists would do if not given positions about it is, I guess, throw a tantrum? I mean, I am not sure murders happen because people were not given jobs. Doesn't mean "keep them off jobs", just to be aware they are prolly going to fuck the morale of everyone underneath them, so perhaps jobs where they do not supervise or have people at their charge s healthier for everyone overall.

Some people might be ok with letting him fuck over his group tho.

Heh, "narcissistic people" with leadership skills will rise to the top regardless of what you do to them. They have precisely the skills required to dominate any hierarchy. Really, the problem isnt them, its the fact that our society has a competitive hierarchy in the first place. Once people decide that following the most dominant dog in the pack is a good idea, everything else follows from that.

s one thing, but I was asked directly so I was all like "Here is what Aszur has to say you ready sweethearts buckle up and hold on to your panties because HOT DANG. VROOOOOM! Ok here we are basically: fuck them"

And then there were fireworks and then you came here to destroy my perfect illusion

Story of my life

Okaaaay [shuffles off mumbling to self]

I think the point was that they'll claw their way up there, anyway. You really don't need to actively select against the rest of the modifying population.

Well, you can. Sucks to be your corporate demise in a blaze of Enron.

How does one tell the difference between "differences in inherent psychology between males and females" and differences in society-induced psychology between males and females"?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that even children learn about gender differences from a rather young age, which may complicate things a little.

You compare between cultures, finding as many different child rearing strategies and gender roles as possible.

While poking at the neurology of as many people you can get hold of to narrow in on cause and effect.

In short, you do a hell of a lot of science, while trying to turf the yahoos out.

edited 15th Nov '15 6:24:36 AM by Euodiachloris

@Helomoto: Heh, the first one to answer that in a scientifically rigorous way will earn a nobel prize. I'ts very difficult, maybe impossible. The idea that there are any biologically driven gender differences is controversial. In most cases, biology and culture work together by interacting to produce a behavior. That means that if men are more aggressive and women are more nurturing, if men are better a spatial visualization and women better at verbal skills, that's almost certainly because society took a small average difference and amplifies it through socialization. The two influenced are almost impossible to tease apart.

Or you do like me, and just shrug when aske that and when someone uses either nature or nurture to try and validate stupid shit, slap them in the face.

Hard.

Does anyone have an idea, where paranoia crops up from? Not being able to sleep with people in the same room for example, since you get a bad feeling that you really shouldn't fall asleep?

Paranoia, like most phobias and related stuff is more likely linked to anxiety and stuff and at worst to far much harsher stuff such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.

It would depend a lot on the case but seeing how a triggering element here is the presence of others it sounds more like an anxiety of the social kind.

Yup. Or, maybe something specific. One truly horrible experience sleeping with others as a toddler can leave a mark for life.

Phobias come from the same places as any ingrained behaviour pattern: emotions, past experiences, beliefs and/or expectations (yours and others) and what your make-up to deal with it all is like. *shrugs*

Supposedly, we cannot pinpoint where fetishes come from, or if they come exactly from the same though, can we?

Pretty much the only thing that we can say for sure, is that they develop very early in childhood. For whatever reason.

*shrugs* I think they're much like any fixation. The problem is more in the extra weight society at large puts on psychosexual anything. Not to mention the impact some have on other people's development and health.

Damn society, why must you be cray cray about everything. we would be normal if your parameters were straight. Sheesh.

The need to be above normal mammal behaviour.

I heard there's some experiments on mice showing that fears are hereditary.

But what about the gays, lesbians, and bisexuals?

Also, interesting stuff.

edited 18th Nov '15 8:24:32 AM by hellomoto

I prefer this explanation

Hmm, a modern society with low death rates can have lower birth rates as well and still be functioning.

So Evolution can allow for non-optimal behavior, as long as it still allows the community to continue surviving.