Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

It is an error to assume that it is everyone's preference to climb heirarchies. Thus the competitive are drawn to climb the heirarchy and those who dislike responsibility and/or confrontation are drawn away from climbing the heirarchy. So these various forces naturally create stratification within groups.

Yes! In employment — I'm now retired — I avoided hierarchies because I was happy doing what I was doing, and didn't wish to move away from that. So it wasn't that I was avoiding responsibility, confrontation or competition, but only that I had already reached my goal. Actually, I still had a goal, and that was to get better at what I was already doing. That journey is never-ending!

Exactly. So humans are not hive dwellers, a subset will be drawn to climbing the ladder, others like to DO, but don't like to DECIDE. It's all good. Except that the deciders (no surprise) typically decide that they should be compensated more than the doers.

I will neither agree nor disagree with you, but will simply tell a story that I have heard, and would like to hear your opinions on that.

A lumberjack complained to the king, arguing that he worked tirelessly cutting trees all day but was paid far less than the minister, who merely sat and thought. The king came up with a test to demonstrate his point.

To find out where a moving cart was going, the king gave the lumberjack instructions to follow it. The king had to dispatch the lumberjack again each time he returned with a single piece of information (such as the present location of the cart) in order to obtain additional information, including the identity of the person inside or the object being carried.

When the minister was given the same task, he analyzed the situation, asked a few critical questions, and gathered all the necessary information in a single trip.

The king explained that while the lumberjack's work was physically demanding, it lacked strategic thought and efficiency. The minister, however, accomplished the same objective more successfully by using intelligence, foresight, and planning. Critical thinking and problem-solving skills are uncommon and frequently more useful than monotonous physical labour. The minister's increased pay was therefore justified.

[Sushan]

It is an error to assume that it is everyone's preference to climb heirarchies. Thus the competitive are drawn to climb the heirarchy and those who dislike responsibility and/or confrontation are drawn away from climbing the heirarchy. So these various forces naturally create stratification within groups.

Yes! In employment — I'm now retired — I avoided hierarchies because I was happy doing what I was doing, and didn't wish to move away from that. So it wasn't that I was avoiding responsibility, confrontation or competition, but only that I had already reached my goal. Actually, I still had a goal, and that was to get better at what I was already doing. That journey is never-ending!

Exactly. So humans are not hive dwellers, a subset will be drawn to climbing the ladder, others like to DO, but don't like to DECIDE. It's all good. Except that the deciders (no surprise) typically decide that they should be compensated more than the doers.

I did the same. After much trial, and just as much error, I found that I most enjoyed white collar technical roles. As a rule, I found people at the lower and mid rungs to be more honest, trustworthy and interesting than senior managers. One needs to be prepared to play hardball at the upper echelons. If I'd somehow received a Peter Principle promotion to management, I would have soon been chewed up and spat out.

A pluralist society in action. I'm okay with the upper echelons being paid more. Management (at least good management) is hard, the skills needed are relatively uncommon and the roles tend to demand much of a person's time, heart and soul. Of course, the balance has famously gone out of whack, with outrageous inequality that can only lead to instability, but nature tends to restore balance in the end. "Restore balance", of course, is a euphemism for a rapid acceleration in the death rate.

Oh well.

Yes, we all do not possess the necessary abilities for certain leading and managing roles, and some of such skills can be learned while some has to be naturally inherited. And with the demanding nature and the amount they have to sacrifice from their inner peace for the sake of doing their managerial roles, yes, it is okay to compensate them more. But if the spoon is in their hands and they simply decide to serve their plates more, then that is a serious issue and need to reevaluate their suitability to those roles.

[Sushan]

...I found that I most enjoyed white collar technical roles. As a rule, I found people at the lower and mid rungs to be more honest, trustworthy and interesting than senior managers. One needs to be prepared to play hardball at the upper echelons. ... Management (at least good management) is hard, the skills needed are relatively uncommon and the roles tend to demand much of a person's time, heart and soul.

In theory, you are quite correct. In practice, in the real world, I wonder if you are? In my experience, managers are duplicitous and ignorant, in general. Yes, proper management is a difficult and demanding job, requiring skills that few have. But managers get paid the most, as we all know, so the greediest of us make our way into management even though we have none of the necessary skills. These 'managers', who form the vast majority, substitute the necessary skills with simple bullying. Management by fear is almost universal, sadly.

I agree. Most people chase after managerial roles not because they are good managers or leaders, but simply for the financial (and also non-financial) benefits that are associated with such roles. But if only such people are placed in the top level of the hierarchy rather than the real leaders and managers, I think the issue is with the entire system and need to be reevaluated very soon to avoid an impending collapse of the entire system.

[Sushan]

So humans are not hive dwellers, a subset will be drawn to climbing the ladder, others like to DO, but don't like to DECIDE. It's all good. Except that the deciders (no surprise) typically decide that they should be compensated more than the doers.

I liked to DO and to DECIDE, but not to manage or supervise other humans. The former is because I loved my vocation — software design and architecture — and the latter because I am an appalling people-person, and placing me in charge of others is unfair to all, including me. Once I had become senior enough, I arranged to be given full technical responsibility for our software and its design, implementation, and testing. I did this alongside a Team Leader, who managed the Team (including me) excellently, so that I could concentrate on what *I* did best.

With all due respect and not the slightest idea of disrespecting you, I would like to tell what happened to us when we made a servant the master.

We had a defence secretary in our country, who was a former army personnel. He was a good officer, and had everything in him to obey orders. And as the defence secretary he did a great job (although there were shady and suspicious areas) and even had a massive role in ending a civil war that lasted almost thirty years.

With that experience, we made him our president, and I must say we had great hopes for our country when we elected him. But we saw his real side and his inability to lead only then. Ultimately he ended up being the very first president in my country who was chased away from his position by an uprising of people.

Some people are good at doing their assigned tasks when they are under some supervision. But they tend to breakdown when are assigned with both roles together, like what happened to our former president.

[Sushan]

How we can communicate and understand each other even if we are not living a life that knows anything other than what is it, well, it's a nature process that lets us do this, so if nature is evolving, then humans could evolve to some states of better understanding and a different approach to life.

Its selectivity means that if humans decided slower, they would comprehend more, but by nature, faster deciding is dangerous to the slow decider. So something of a defense mechanism doesn't let us decide slowly and have a more complete insight.

I am not certain that faster decision-making always comes at the cost of understanding. Cognitive psychology shows that humans can develop strategies to combine speed with accuracy, such as "heuristics."

While slower decision-making may allow for deeper understanding, it's not universally beneficial or applicable. I would say it is context and situation dependant. In certain contexts like emergencies, speed is essential to save lives.

And that is why different fields require different sets of skills to work as well as lead and manage.

[Sushan]

...I found that I most enjoyed white collar technical roles. As a rule, I found people at the lower and mid rungs to be more honest, trustworthy and interesting than senior managers. One needs to be prepared to play hardball at the upper echelons. ... Management (at least good management) is hard, the skills needed are relatively uncommon and the roles tend to demand much of a person's time, heart and soul.

In theory, you are quite correct. In practice, in the real world, I wonder if you are? In my experience, managers are duplicitous and ignorant, in general. Yes, proper management is a difficult and demanding job, requiring skills that few have. But managers get paid the most, as we all know, so the greediest of us make our way into management even though we have none of the necessary skills. These 'managers', who form the vast majority, substitute the necessary skills with simple bullying. Management by fear is almost universal, sadly.

Like anything, there's a range. Some managers are brilliant and steely-nerved and some are shysters or victims of the Peter Principle. Whatever, hierarchies inevitably form. Any attempt at a level playing field will inevitably degrade and skew.

The hard part is keeping power in check, preventing it from dominating unsustainably. An as-yet unsolved problem.

Quite true. But if Peter Principle is seen more and more in a system, it is not a fault with the managers, but with the system itself.

Yes, power needs to be kept in check, and there are certain fields like the military, that the psychologists argue attract people with certain personalities or personality traits. To be specific, military attracts narcissistic people who can simply exert their narcissistic practices due to the hierarchical structure and the laws and rules. This is more or less similar to any field, in my opinion, and with the power people tend to show their teeth, or their actual personalities.

[Sushan]

So humans are not hive dwellers, a subset will be drawn to climbing the ladder, others like to DO, but don't like to DECIDE. It's all good. Except that the deciders (no surprise) typically decide that they should be compensated more than the doers.

I liked to DO and to DECIDE, but not to manage or supervise other humans. The former is because I loved my vocation — software design and architecture — and the latter because I am an appalling people-person, and placing me in charge of others is unfair to all, including me. Once I had become senior enough, I arranged to be given full technical responsibility for our software and its design, implementation, and testing. I did this alongside a Team Leader, who managed the Team (including me) excellently, so that I could concentrate on what *I* did best.

Win/win. Congrats... But the Team Leader made more than you, right?

Quite the usual scenario! All are happy, and some are paid more simply because of their position. But the good thing is all are satisfied at the end of the day and the task is accomplished. Money is not everything, and there are people who value other things more than money. So if people can be put in such a perfect combination (money-lovers with not-so-money-lovers) the world will be of no competition, no backstabbing, and much more peaceful.

[Sushan]

So humans are not hive dwellers, a subset will be drawn to climbing the ladder, others like to DO, but don't like to DECIDE. It's all good. Except that the deciders (no surprise) typically decide that they should be compensated more than the doers.

I liked to DO and to DECIDE, but not to manage or supervise other humans. The former is because I loved my vocation — software design and architecture — and the latter because I am an appalling people-person, and placing me in charge of others is unfair to all, including me. Once I had become senior enough, I arranged to be given full technical responsibility for our software and its design, implementation, and testing. I did this alongside a Team Leader, who managed the Team (including me) excellently, so that I could concentrate on what *I* did best.

Win/win. Congrats... But the Team Leader made more than you, right?

In our case, the TL made much the same as me, but in general, I think your assumption is correct.

After doing the task of managing an entire team of different people with different skills, attitudes, personalities, and directing the team towards the intended goal, if the team leader is quite happy to be compensated equally as all the other team members, I would like to say that he/she is a good leader as well as a good human being. I would like to know whether you agree with my opinion about your team leader

[LuckyR]

It is an error to assume that it is everyone's preference to climb heirarchies. Thus the competitive are drawn to climb the heirarchy and those who dislike responsibility and/or confrontation are drawn away from climbing the heirarchy. So these various forces naturally create stratification within groups.

Yes! In employment — I'm now retired — I avoided hierarchies because I was happy doing what I was doing, and didn't wish to move away from that. So it wasn't that I was avoiding responsibility, confrontation or competition, but only that I had already reached my goal. Actually, I still had a goal, and that was to get better at what I was already doing. That journey is never-ending!

Exactly. So humans are not hive dwellers, a subset will be drawn to climbing the ladder, others like to DO, but don't like to DECIDE. It's all good. Except that the deciders (no surprise) typically decide that they should be compensated more than the doers.

I will neither agree nor disagree with you, but will simply tell a story that I have heard, and would like to hear your opinions on that.

A lumberjack complained to the king, arguing that he worked tirelessly cutting trees all day but was paid far less than the minister, who merely sat and thought. The king came up with a test to demonstrate his point.

To find out where a moving cart was going, the king gave the lumberjack instructions to follow it. The king had to dispatch the lumberjack again each time he returned with a single piece of information (such as the present location of the cart) in order to obtain additional information, including the identity of the person inside or the object being carried.

When the minister was given the same task, he analyzed the situation, asked a few critical questions, and gathered all the necessary information in a single trip.

The king explained that while the lumberjack's work was physically demanding, it lacked strategic thought and efficiency. The minister, however, accomplished the same objective more successfully by using intelligence, foresight, and planning. Critical thinking and problem-solving skills are uncommon and frequently more useful than monotonous physical labour. The minister's increased pay was therefore justified.

Yes, the story is an accurate representation of reality. Though there is another, as yet unmentioned, variable. Namely that there are an abundance of potential workers who can do, compared to candidates who are skilled at using their mind (in your example) or managing others (in PC's example). Scarcity drives compensation.

[Pattern-chaser]

A lumberjack complained to the king, arguing that he worked tirelessly cutting trees all day but was paid far less than the minister, who merely sat and thought. The king came up with a test to demonstrate his point.

To find out where a moving cart was going, the king gave the lumberjack instructions to follow it. The king had to dispatch the lumberjack again each time he returned with a single piece of information (such as the present location of the cart) in order to obtain additional information, including the identity of the person inside or the object being carried.

When the minister was given the same task, he analyzed the situation, asked a few critical questions, and gathered all the necessary information in a single trip.

The king explained that while the lumberjack's work was physically demanding, it lacked strategic thought and efficiency. The minister, however, accomplished the same objective more successfully by using intelligence, foresight, and planning. Critical thinking and problem-solving skills are uncommon and frequently more useful than monotonous physical labour. The minister's increased pay was therefore justified.

And yet, it seems from your story that the efforts of both the labourer and the minister were necessary; each was required. I wonder why you think one is worth more than the other, when both offer a very different service, and both services seem necessary?

[Pattern-chaser]

Scarcity drives compensation.

To a point. But it is also the case that managers, when interviewing others for managerial positions similar to their own, set an unexpectedly high financial value on the new (managerial) position... She who makes the decision sets the salary, and if it's a similar job to her own, she would do well to ensure the remuneration is as much higher than everyone else's as it can be. After all, managers are worth so much more than the plebs, right? <sarcasm>

[LuckyR]

Scarcity drives compensation.

To a point. But it is also the case that managers, when interviewing others for managerial positions similar to their own, set an unexpectedly high financial value on the new (managerial) position... She who makes the decision sets the salary, and if it's a similar job to her own, she would do well to ensure the remuneration is as much higher than everyone else's as it can be. After all, managers are worth so much more than the plebs, right? <sarcasm>

The point I made in my post in 2022.

[AnabelleCortez]

i see no one has mentioned dekart's philosophy here. You guys should definitely explore it. especially in this Hot Temperature of Bakersfield

[LuckyR]

i see no one has mentioned dekart's philosophy here. You guys should definitely explore it. especially in this Hot Temperature of Bakersfield

What's your summary of Decartes?

[detail69]

Well, human society does provide methods for the survival of the individual. Most of them could be seen as a lambda calculus with a backfeed in form of a Y-combinator. This provides if stable the necessity of feasible fixed point within a utilty. The problem is that structure cannot be build forever after the laws of phycics . Entropy just provides the death of every structure. Nietzsche the german philosopher said in his works that every stable society has to implement it's own moral values which then is neglected by simple egoism of the members of the society which causes a perpetual rise of nihilism which he claims to be the european way to buddhism is works "will to power " in german "Der Wille zur Macht". This should give us a clue to the ontological point of view of this question.