Journalists operate at a lower level than average

Pierre

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
If you needed extra proof of the deliquescence of mainstream media. According to a new study, journalists exhibit below-average ability to regulate their emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and show creative and flexible thinking.

The paper attribute these poor scores to excessive consumption of caffeine and alcohol, but I'm wondering if something more fundamental at work.

Journalists drink too much, are bad at managing emotions, and operate at a lower level than average, according to a new study

Journalists drink too much, are bad at managing emotions, and operate at a lower level than average, according to a new study​


May 19, 2017, 1:12 PM

journos

Journalists also are apparently good at managing the stresses that come with their jobs. UNClimateChange / Flickr
Journalists' brains show a lower-than-average level of executive functioning, according to a new study, which means they have a below-average ability to regulate their emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and show creative and flexible thinking.

The study, led by Tara Swart, a neuroscientist and leadership coach, analysed 40 journalists from newspapers, magazines, broadcast, and online platforms over seven months. The participants took part in tests related to their lifestyle, health, and behaviour.


It was launched in association with the London Press Club, and the objective was to determine how journalists can thrive under stress. It is not yet peer reviewed, and the sample size is small, so the results should not be taken necessarily as fact.

Each subject completed a blood test, wore a heart-rate monitor for three days, kept a food and drink diary for a week, and completed a brain profile questionnaire.
The results showed that journalists' brains were operating at a lower level than the average population, particularly because of dehydration and the tendency of journalists to self-medicate with alcohol, caffeine, and high-sugar foods.

Forty-one percent of the subjects said they drank 18 or more units of alcohol a week, which is four units above the recommended weekly allowance. Less than 5% drank the recommended amount of water.


However, in interviews conducted in conjunction with the brain profile results, the participants indicated they felt their jobs had a lot of meaning and purpose, and they showed high mental resilience. Swart suggested this gave them an advantage over people in other professions in dealing with the work pressure of tight deadlines.
Journalists scored pretty high on:
  • Abstraction, the ability to deal with ideas rather than events. It's related to the part of the brain where the most sophisticated problem-solving takes place. In other words, it highlights the ability to think outside the box and make connections where others might not see them.
  • Value tagging, the ability to assign values to different sensory cues, such as whether something is a priority or has meaning. Scoring highly in this area indicates a good ability to sift through information and pick out what's important.
Journalists scored lower on:

  • Executive function. As well as the traits mentioned above, low scores for executive function also suggest poor sleep, nutrition, exercise, and mindfulness. Many participants reported they had no time for breaks while working.
  • Silencing the mind, which is related to the ability to have thoughts without getting distracted by them, or a powerful ability to focus. Low scores indicate the opposite, suggesting journalists have a hard time preventing themselves from worrying about the future or regretting the past.
Compared with bankers, traders, or salespeople, journalists showed that they were more able to cope with pressure. Traits that make journalism a stressful profession are deadlines, accountability to the public, unpredictable and heavy workloads, public scrutiny, repercussions on social media, and lower pay.

The results, however, showed that the journalists were on average no more physically stressed than the average person. The blood tests showed that their levels of cortisol — known as the stress hormone — were mostly normal.

"The headline conclusion reached is that journalists are undoubtedly subject to a range of pressures at work and home, but the meaning and purpose they attribute to their work contributes to helping them remain mentally resilient despite this," the study says. "Nevertheless, there are areas for improvement, including drinking more water and reducing alcohol and caffeine consumption to increase executive functioning and improve recovery during sleep."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Andrian

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thank you for sharing Pierre, interesting find though not surprising.

I don't want to sound like preaching but as the old saying goes "like attracts like", that is, a society that has been ponerized in almost it's entirety due to pathological individuals governing the said society, the media is being seen as a tool to be used against the masses to keep them blind, distracted and obedient therefore the individuals who are working in the Media are those that either are made of a similar staff as their pathological puppet masters or are naturally inclined to submit and allow to be molded according to their puppet masters will, a few who have the integrity of their soul but are choosing to sell it to the devil in order to keep their job, a choice that it comes with a high price I'd say and finally there just a few who have a real backbone thus being able to stand against the pathology.

I wonder also if there is not involved also a kind of personality disintegration due to all the disinformation and misinformation they're spreading everyday thus choosing to be literally the mouthpieces of the PTB that in itself it should have some impact on themselves spiritually speaking.

Just some thoughts.
 

Puma

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The headline conclusion reached is that journalists are undoubtedly subject to a range of pressures at work and home...

This reminds me of a question Laura asked on July 19, 2014 about how people of conscience can in fact be an agent of the psychopaths in power:

(L) Well, since we have a pretty good idea of who did it, we know the answer to that. Okay, so that leads me to a question that's been on my mind for the last day or so. I noticed that the "Black Hats", the bad guys, the whole pathological community seem to be quite well-organized and unified to some extent in their public activities. For example, Israel is able to get all these students, the Hasbara program; the Pentagon has hired all of these people to engage in cyber warfare; there are trolls that go all over the internet swaying public opinion and writing commentary. Edward Snowden has come out and explained exactly how it's done. I mean, they have a HUGE, elaborate cyber warfare program and train people to get out there and work for the control of people's minds. It's just absolutely staggering. So, one thing about it that really gets me is that first of all, even with this revelation of Snowden that has hit all the major media, people don't stop and think that EVERYTHING that's going on could be part of that disinformation program! The second thing is, why is it that people with peaceful, world-benevolent opinions and approaches - people of conscience - can't get together in the same way that evil does? Evil seems to coalesce, and people of conscience seem to... it's almost like their conscience forces them to fight with each other! I mean, assuming they even have a conscience. What's the deal here? I want to know.

A: First of all notice that the STS side uses two hooks: money and promises of power. It is not so much "unity of purpose." Secondly, just as you have learned from your studies of psychology and from the work of Gurdjieff, people with the genetics for "soul" or conscience are very wounded by the programming of family and society.

I think that apart from social and labor pressures or drinking caffeinee, essentially it is about corruption and believe in líes.

So as in the case when a person believes in lies and rewires his brain, corruption also seems to have the effect that a journalist cannot manage his emotions.

In Mexico we have many examples of the corruption of journalism and many examples of journalists who did not give in to it and ended up dead.

The case of the Mexican journalist Carlos Loret de Mola comes to mind.

Loret de Mola had a long career as a reporter, war correspondent, television host and won journalism awards in Spain and Mexico.

In 2005 and during the six-year term of the corrupt Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Loret de Mola had the opportunity to broadcast live the capture of an alleged gang of kidnappers "Los Zodiaco". This case had international repercussions because French citizen Florence Cassez was among the kidnappers. (The French citizen was sentenced to 60 years in prison for the kidnapping of three people.)

About fifteen years later we learn that the entire case involving Florence Cassez, which cost her about 8 years of her life in prison, was a television montage produced by Loret.

The director of the Federal Investigation Agency (AFI), Genaro García Luna, was the one who ordered the montage so that the media could see the supposed actions of the authorities in order to create an appearance of security and effectiveness.

Forbes magazine included Genaro Luns in the list of the 10 most corrupt men in Mexico in 2013 and today he is imprisoned in the United States on charges of conspiracy, accepting bribes from the Sinaloa Cartel and false statements. While Loret's career has declined and today he is a rabid critic of the government of President Obrador who has exposed him.

Loret is now working for the interests of a powerful economic minority that has been affected by the president's social and economic policies.

Laura Barranco, former partner of Carlos Loret de Mola in Primero Noticias, said that he is not a journalist, but a person disguised as a journalist who serves the most corrupt and shady interests in this country.

"It is unfortunate (the montages). We have seen people who invent and publish open lies that are practically disabled for their entire lives to practice journalism, I think that something similar should happen with Carlos Loret" she said.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I think that there are two complementary effects, and they do not affect only the profession of journalism but other professions as well. Fist of all, certain disciplines attract certain types of personalities, but also certain mental predispositions. It is well known that certain career choices attract on average (there are always some outliers as in everything) the less intelligent students because they promote memorization rather than comprehension and thinking for instance. One could argue that the whole scholar and academic system is built as a filter that selects for the most obedient, and in certain fields, the most mediocre. If one could compare this predisposition, one could think of the medieval scribes and copyists in monasteries. Same thing save for the clothes. Then with these predispositions selected for, there is the professional milieu itself. where the press' job is primarily a vehicle of lies where the person has to convey the lies in order to stay in the system. If the believe the lies the become corrupted by it, and if they don't believe them they nevertheless suffer from the constant internal conflict. It's a lose-lose situation.

On the another hand, there is also the calcification of the mind. Like a physical organ in the body, a mind that is not used is lost. For a lack of mental exercise, many in the so-called white-collar professions become a shell of their former selves, and professions like journalism, among others, offer such a condition unless the individual consciously struggles against it.
 

Laurs

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Just read an interesting take on this issue by Professor Thomas Harrington. His article deals with the issue of journalists, and the majority of the people at large, not questioning the narratives or digging deeper into what is going on, despite the fact that everyone has access to documents that blow the narratives apart. Paraphrasing from the article:

Apart from the fact that government and big tech have worked together to pressure reporters into not going where they don’t want them to go, which is certainly an important factor in ensuring a certain silence around these documents, Harrington thinks there is a deeper dynamic driving this now persistent failure of so many people, especially the young, to confront authority with the documentary proof of easily-accessible facts. He believes it has a lot to do with an epochal change in the overall cognitive habits of our culture. We went from orality to literacy and back again. He mentions that thanks to scholars like Walter Ong and Neil Postman, we have long been aware of how communicative technologies (e.g. printing presses, books, radio and television) can engender profound changes in our cognitive habits. Whereas reading books encourages contemplation, linear thinking and abstraction, tv and the internet encourages entertainment, atemporality and the consumption of fleeting visual sensations that basically stops people from developing a sense of power and self-possession that inevitably accrues to those who easily enter into dialogue with the written page. Harrington realized that the intellectual 'coming of age' in these people had mostly taken place before a screen that tended to push often disparate and random sounds, images and short chains of text at them in quick succession.

As a result, reading, with its need for sustained attention and its requirement that one actively imagine for one’s self what it is the writer is trying to say (and question things), was extremely challenging for them. Many of them had already resigned themselves to the idea that the best a person could hope to do in this world of non-stop informational comets was to occasionally reach up to try and trap one long enough to give others the impression of being reasonably intelligent and in control of life. That education could be about something more than the game of serially defending the fragile self against a chaotic and vaguely threatening world—and instead be about something like actively building an affirmative and affirming personal philosophy—seemed, for many in this newer cohort, to be largely beyond their ken.

In a world where, to paraphrase Zygmunt Bauman, all is liquid and most are driven by the search for fleeting sensations, and where establishing a personal hermeneutic through reading and contemplation is considered quaintly quixotic when not impossible, the mutterings of the authority figure nearby take on an enhanced attraction.

He suggests that this outlook on information management is now predominant among many of the young and not so young people working in journalism today.
Unfamiliar with the slow and deliberate processes of deep analytical reading and the importance of seeking information that lies beyond the frenetic and ever more highly managed jungle of delivered feeds, they find it very difficult to forge a durable, unique and cohesive critical praxis.

And lacking this, they latch on to the oral summaries of reality provided by those presented to them as being authoritative. That these authority figures might be directly contradicting what can be found in the most consequential thing in a society of laws—its written archive—seems never to occur to them. Or if it does occur to them, the idea is quickly suppressed: Who am I, they seem to say, with my inexperience in mindful reading and research and thus deep insecurities about my own critical acuity to raise discordant questions in relation to the great and powerful men and women before me?

 

Metrist

Dagobah Resident
When something newsworthy occurs, it generates interest, and so what do you do? Go to your search engine and find information on news of this occurance. And so you get page after page of headlines that come up. And though the news businesses are varied, and from anywhere there is internet connectivity, they always point to one or two sources. And if you browse several news sites, you'll see that they are copied - word for word. Sometimes the wording of the headlines differ, but the articles the same.
So journalism is sourced to a few centralized outlets. And it is centralized for a reason - to own what is dispensed into our perceptions. Granted, it isn't all that we perceive - over mass media channels - but it is the mass medias agenda to be totalitarian in that regard. And so beyond the core circle of journalists - who are probably not journalists at all - but facilitators of agendas, a journalist necessarily must be as dumb and useful as the news audience, as they are redundant under this centralized scheme. What good would be a journalist who'd say: 'All our news is sourced from one or two outlets, and it is journalisms job to copy and paste it'.
So, that the profession serve as cover for these power structures, journalist needn't be too refined. With a token degree of proficiency to be plausible, but moreso a desperate need to belong in a profession that largely isn't real. So, it makes sense that journalists can be lower than average, when lower than average is what is desired. They're news-thralls.
 

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
That's interesting, though I would think that it depends on the definition of journalist.

If their sample for their study was people who work in the mainstream media, I daresay that they're not really journalists, they're people who are given an agenda to push and present in a specific way and never question nor investigate. To me, though I could be wrong, a journalist was someone with a healthy curiosity for the truth. And I would think that such an endeavor would have the ability to keep a person somewhat regulated.

But most people who work in the MSM today are more like story pushers who are chasing and competing to push their story first and more dramatically, and as such their job would be more closely related in dynamics to a sales person. And as such, their scruples would become an impediment and I see how one, a specific type of individual would be attracted to the profession, and two, it would behove one, If one wished to succeed, to quiet down one's conscience using whatever means available, such as alcohol.

Which reminds me of the stories one would hear of places like Wall Street, where stock brokers and traders are just completely impulsive and emotionally unregulated, drug consumption is extremely high and the goal is similar to the one of MSM people these days, sell sell sell!

Just a few thoughts.
 

Metrist

Dagobah Resident
In times before the internet revolution, we knew to some degree what a journalist was. It involved interest, expertise, knowledge, in a range of subjects or current events, that a professional was involved, that people would turn to share in information through print and distributed works.
Well, all the faucets of journalism became available to all with a computer and internet connection. And while a journalists trade demanded its disciplines, it was obviated by turning all of it into a virtual domain, thus making journalism a reality to all - albeit in varied degree. And so, this cheapened the profession in the sense that it was no longer a exclusive field and not just a profession, but a passion for those who just wanted to share knowledge. Everyone wanted to share knowledge and nothing stood in the way - you need only readily available electronics to produce and publish your own content.
So, journalism suffered when everybody gained the capacity to do the work of a journalist... They didn't need schooling, training, ect. Just a passion to share. And with passion came excellence, and the immediacy of the internet meant that a professional journalists didn't have the exclusivity once afforded to them.
It is as if they were replaced by an electronic medium. So, automation impacted them the hardest, because everything turned digital leaving them with no exclusivity. They are scorned as everyone else when it is said: 'Don't believe everything you read on the internet'. There is nothing that sets them aside from the crowd, except that for money, they may have to stretch the truth, omit things, be politically correct, ect. and they have no worth otherwise - in the eyes of their bosses.
So, citizen journalism and technology made their profession die - though it was a unintended consequence. And to be employed as a journalists now is to skew things towards consumerism. Reviewers come to mind - every new product is a 10: Review: Best ever!
Consumer: Don't buy this junk!
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
Just read an interesting take on this issue by Professor Thomas Harrington. His article deals with the issue of journalists, and the majority of the people at large, not questioning the narratives or digging deeper into what is going on, despite the fact that everyone has access to documents that blow the narratives apart. Paraphrasing from the article:

Apart from the fact that government and big tech have worked together to pressure reporters into not going where they don’t want them to go, which is certainly an important factor in ensuring a certain silence around these documents, Harrington thinks there is a deeper dynamic driving this now persistent failure of so many people, especially the young, to confront authority with the documentary proof of easily-accessible facts. He believes it has a lot to do with an epochal change in the overall cognitive habits of our culture. We went from orality to literacy and back again. He mentions that thanks to scholars like Walter Ong and Neil Postman, we have long been aware of how communicative technologies (e.g. printing presses, books, radio and television) can engender profound changes in our cognitive habits. Whereas reading books encourages contemplation, linear thinking and abstraction, tv and the internet encourages entertainment, atemporality and the consumption of fleeting visual sensations that basically stops people from developing a sense of power and self-possession that inevitably accrues to those who easily enter into dialogue with the written page. Harrington realized that the intellectual 'coming of age' in these people had mostly taken place before a screen that tended to push often disparate and random sounds, images and short chains of text at them in quick succession.

As a result, reading, with its need for sustained attention and its requirement that one actively imagine for one’s self what it is the writer is trying to say (and question things), was extremely challenging for them. Many of them had already resigned themselves to the idea that the best a person could hope to do in this world of non-stop informational comets was to occasionally reach up to try and trap one long enough to give others the impression of being reasonably intelligent and in control of life. That education could be about something more than the game of serially defending the fragile self against a chaotic and vaguely threatening world—and instead be about something like actively building an affirmative and affirming personal philosophy—seemed, for many in this newer cohort, to be largely beyond their ken.

In a world where, to paraphrase Zygmunt Bauman, all is liquid and most are driven by the search for fleeting sensations, and where establishing a personal hermeneutic through reading and contemplation is considered quaintly quixotic when not impossible, the mutterings of the authority figure nearby take on an enhanced attraction.

He suggests that this outlook on information management is now predominant among many of the young and not so young people working in journalism today.
Unfamiliar with the slow and deliberate processes of deep analytical reading and the importance of seeking information that lies beyond the frenetic and ever more highly managed jungle of delivered feeds, they find it very difficult to forge a durable, unique and cohesive critical praxis.

And lacking this, they latch on to the oral summaries of reality provided by those presented to them as being authoritative. That these authority figures might be directly contradicting what can be found in the most consequential thing in a society of laws—its written archive—seems never to occur to them. Or if it does occur to them, the idea is quickly suppressed: Who am I, they seem to say, with my inexperience in mindful reading and research and thus deep insecurities about my own critical acuity to raise discordant questions in relation to the great and powerful men and women before me?


Excellent insights there!

The divide between reading/writing and public speaking is perhaps not insurmountable, but it certainly exists.

I find in my own case that my abilities of communication have been most easily adapted to the written form, where if I forget the perfect word, I can sit and take a moment to sift through memory until it pops up again. You can go back and edit! Wow! Speaking doesn't allow that. You need to get it right on the first try. But with text, you can read through and catch snags in the cognitive 'track' a writer is asking the reader to follow, make sure all the right land marks are on the tour and that the guide is well briefed on their details. Done well, a tract of text can be both easy to follow and very effective in presenting complex ideas.

These skills take YEARS to acquire. Reading and writing are completely unnatural for the human monkey. Heck, just learning how to type is a ridiculously unlikely skill to have acquired; it's amazing not just that people can do it, but that they can do it fast. -And without looking.

But in the age of YouTube and TicTok.., what value do those skills have?

Well, thankfully, quite a lot. You can't perform fast, non-linear searches through a video. You can't rely on video for complex and critical bits of information to stay put. Blink and you miss it. -Sure, you can hit pause and go back, but really, how often do we do that while listening to an interview? It's cumbersome. And beyond that, there are other, more mysterious neurological effects at work; It has been well documented (see?) that in order to really make data stick in one's mind, to make it available for instant recall and understanding, the best way by far is to read it from a paper document, away from computerized distraction. All the best speakers are also prolific readers.

Though.., I look at guys like Tim Pool and his generation of contemporaries, and they appear to gather most, if not all of their information from screens. I wonder if that's a result of having grown up with the medium? Has the human monkey brain managed to adapt yet again, placing twenty to early thirty-somethings beyond the previous generation in terms of cognitive hardware?

In any case...

Public Speaking is a different beast, requiring all of those skills described above, but that they be performed in Real Time, -and not only that, but for best effect, while also making use of an entire extra dimension of communication variables. Vocal cadence, expression, timing.., heck, the lighting in the room behind the speaker; you can't make a video while standing in front of a bright window or your face will turn into a blob of shadow. You have to remain mindful of the position of the mic. As with typing, you need to develop a range of muscle memories in order just to stand and talk effectively. All of that stuff simply cannot be learned quickly. Note that for a guy like Joe Rogan to be effective while sitting in a chair, he first had to grind through years of hard lessons on a stage in front of an audience. Jordan Peterson, while not a comedian, probably spent as many hours (or perhaps even more) also learning how to communicate from a podium.

I've spent the last couple of years trying to figure out video tools, and I'm still only about half as effective in that field as I am with a simple keyboard; it's easy to feel left behind by the medium. -And that's given the fact humans are far better equipped to start on the public speaking road; we all started training to talk while wearing diapers.

The fact of the matter is that to make a difference in today's media landscape, both skill sets need to be not just learned, but honed.

Reading. Writing. Speaking.

And there's a fourth skill...

Listening to and Observing real people in real time. (Again, Jordan Peterson is well-equipped here, having trained through his professional clinical psychologist practice. Rogan, I think, has been training in that area since the beginning of his podcast work, years ago, and has also become quite good at it.)

Public Speaking, for sure, is important in the new media landscape, but in order to speak well, one must attend to the Listening and Observing part of the equation. That might be one place where the bog standard journalist is running into problems today, and why we see them being so.., out of touch, (literally) with the human race.
 
Last edited:

Alma.Innovadora

Jedi Council Member
If the believe the lies the become corrupted by it, and if they don't believe them they nevertheless suffer from the constant internal conflict. It's a lose-lose situation.

Exactly. That was the main reason why I always had problems and tried to maintain a position where I didn't have to follow irrational orders. For certain types of jobs you need corrupt or honest people, there is a profile for everything and there is always the possibility of being corrupted by staying sane.

In this case, if the journalist's thinking aligns with that of the agency he works for, and that is disinformation, his stress level is not going to be as bad as that of a healthy person seeking the truth.

When I worked for government agencies it was inevitable to see journalism as the relationship between J. Jonah Jameson and Peter Parker, we were forced to push information with a specific alignment, not to investigate and if what was investigated was not what they expected, the information was altered and that was stressful, disappointing and we got to the point where we were only looking out for our job for the money. Otherwise it was to go against the alignments of the superiors and that is a lot of stress that indeed alcohol when traveling and coffee in the office, was the doping for that.

My fellow journalists, were forced to remove their names from their press releases to protect their careers because they knew they were lying to people and me to take more pictures of the same. It was either that or deal with mixed emotions while looking for another place to work.
 

ziutek

Jedi Master
"I also knew that their "occupational disease
occupational disease" is congestive dementia, once found almost
almost exclusively in old prostitutes. Regardless of the quality of one's
I was also aware that their "occupational disease" could be characterized by stasis dementia.
human feelings."

Quote from Lobaczewski. These are the results of working for a pathological system.
 
Last edited:

ziutek

Jedi Master
"Wiedziałem także i to, że ich „chorobą
zawodową" bywa demencja zastoinowa, spotykana kiedyś prawie
wyłącznie u starych prostytutek. Niezależnie od jakości wykonywanego
zawodu, człowiek nie może permanentnie gwałcić w sobie elementarnych
ludzkich uczuć."

This is a quote in Polish because it translates very badly deepl.
 

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Exactly. That was the main reason why I always had problems and tried to maintain a position where I didn't have to follow irrational orders. For certain types of jobs you need corrupt or honest people, there is a profile for everything and there is always the possibility of being corrupted by staying sane.
Yes, what you wrote reminded me of this show in MindMatters about the managerial class.


I think it's worth the listen and then contextualize it in the work of poenology. There's a type of person that suits the manager role, but what type of person suits that role in a pathocracy?
 

Alma.Innovadora

Jedi Council Member
I think it's worth the listen and then contextualize it in the work of poenology. There's a type of person that suits the manager role, but what type of person suits that role in a pathocracy?

This is a good program, thank you for sharing it.

What I have observed is that people lose their ability to exercise moral and objective criticism by restricting perception about their various methods of criminality, normalizing what goes against their most genuine interests in all walks of life. but what are genuine interests for each person? Just to be successful? Then it is not surprising that they defend such a system and its respective psychopath.

From the managerial level, it is like the "earliest" way to filter and exert control over people, that they learn to mindlessly follow a psychopathic figure, mainly because people believe that it only happens at the political level and not at the managerial level and in the face of that fragmented reality, it creates an easy infiltration from lower spheres. But in the end, the result is the same, learn to accept and normalize their criminal actions and in turn that people who identify with them are empowered and purge the rest of the genuine people who will hinder their plans and go infecting all branches of labor. Such normalization is more effective than imposition. It would be a great oversight to concentrate only on the political sphere and neglect their actions in others. where is there no managerial sphere without a checkpoint? Not to mention the dehumanization we see in health, police, military, lawyers, etc.

Faced with an individual who conforms this triad of evil, I think the same, they must be purged when you have the opportunity if it is not the profile of the right person. But to make the right decision, you have to know how to create a method to identify them in time and empathy for me is an important key and the Achilles heel of these subjects. A social order that leads to a critical and moral discipline that exposes the nature of the individual. When there is not a minimum of social order, everyone does what they want according to their impulsivity and identification and that is the best human weed where snakes tend to nest. When they reach a position of power, they are the ones who create the right social order for their purposes which is interesting and not surprising.

I always hated saying the word "boss" it was something that I felt conditioned and hypnotized me mentally, it made me have short circuits as it is part of their linguistic skills to let my guard down, not to think, not to criticize and not to exercise my right to defend myself when necessary because being "boss" means "someone who knows everything and is right about everything" and seeing that people blindly followed a person who was an example of the worst version of the human being, definitely nothing good can come out of that as an example. Especially if employees tend to see them emotionally very close and that is alarming, there is something else on an emotional level that compounds the acceptance of something that they would surely not want even within their own families if they retained their ability to think in the right way and not spend all their time looking to fill the emotional void in their lives.

Psychopaths are a vacuum of endless accumulation and the means to achieve and maintain it is to create the need for other people to have the illusory power they have. If they were prevented from reaching those positions and only genuine individuals could occupy them, with a high consciousness, it might balance things out a bit. We see it in every change of government when the rulers of the day adjust the laws to their convenience in order to stay out of them and their actions are free of repercussions, impunity. What is the point of creating laws when they tell you that they can be interpreted as they wish and therefore have no validity in the face of objective facts? what absurdity is that? the same applies to corporate policies where the laws favor them more than the employer. Cornering people into convenient revolt as well. There is an article in the old sott that was called "revolutions and the war for your mind" it would be good to recover it, it talked about just that, that the left was nothing more than the exit cushion when a right wing government cornered the people too much. But in the end they were the same. Different mattress, the same brand, the same manufacturers and the same false comfort.

The lack of objective information, the need for a savior, each individual's wishful identification and interpretation of what they think and don't think, no matter how foolish, unfortunately allows this infection to continue to spread. In the end, emotions are always easier to control than facts.
 
Top Bottom