While there is plenty of psycopathy in Silicon Valley, it seems like the author is dissapointed that SV psycopaths aren’t his psycopaths.
I’d rather they not aggressively censor their platforms. All the hand-wringing about people being able to communicate right-wing messages on a public forum is a bit rich, considering that they’ve spent billions and are paid billions by spy agencies to manipulate their users for the left. It’s become a maniacal obsession with these people: How do we mind-control the sheep? How do we tailor what they see and who they hear to force their hand? How do we become sufficiently brutal in the syncrhonized-shunning-olympics to punish our political enemies?
I’d also rather they not allow “kinder” “empathetic” social manipulators (psycopaths themselves all too often) to infiltrate and corrupt their organizations in yet another hellish direction.
At this point I just want these people to go away. The internet had such promise, and this is what they’ve made of it. A civilizational disgrace.
BTW: The question was never answered: Why did silicon valley become infested with psycopaths?
And a question of my own: Why are these tiny companies making ad-revenue backed social platforms able to defy all laws of economics, never turn a profit and yet value themselves at trillions of dollars? That facebook can be worth more (and command more credit) than several-dozen of our largest industrial firms that actually make things put together is ludicrous.
Since when has the advertising sector ever dwarfed the sectors it advertised for in any sanely valued economy?
Total advertising expenditures for all U.S. companies in 2019 were estimated at $240.7 billion.
Here’s a contrast for you. The global market for space launch in 2019 was estimated to be $9.88 billion. Proctor & Gamble and Walmart together spent almost that much on advertising that same year ($7.1 billion for P&G, $2.75 billion for Walmart).
It isn’t just advertising. Data mining FB, social media, internet traffic, and financials is a huge market as well. That information is used for all kinds of things.
“Why did silicon valley become infested with psycopaths?”
Because well trained psycopaths make better leaders of agile companies, because they brutally follow the data and the people skills are not important when dealing with engineers. (Well, as long as the engineers don’t have a say, anyway)
Psychopaths have great people skills. Dealing with the foibles of engineers is easy for them.
I don’t find psychopathic CEOs surprising at all. People want to have a leader that exudes insane levels of superiority and confidence. Many people will suspend any reasonable doubts and just go with the flow because:
a) everyone else is doing it
b) CEOs and their cabals are nominally powerful enough to make success for underlings very difficult if any doubt is voiced
c) Evidence of the CEOs failings is carefully hidden by the CEO and their cabal
d) A group lead by a psychopathic leader is capable of producing very impactful results. Sometimes for evil, sometimes for good.
e) People want to be on the winning bandwagon
Most of us are familiar with the “Emperor has no clothes” story. It’s a very strong pattern of human behavior.
It’s a more interesting question, with a much shorter answer, to list the CEO type leaders that ARE NOT displaying psychopathic behaviors.
If you want to have an accurate, nuanced discussion of pros and cons of $X, don’t go to a CEO/President/Marketing … you need to find that somewhere else
I’ve had dealings with Elon Musk, and have met Jeff Bezos. Elon was always such a nice guy, almost shy. I like him. Jeff was a perfect gentleman, very pleasant to speak with. Those are snapshots, and I’m sure that the dark side of each can be…well, dark. Heck, I probably have a side some people would regard as dark, yet I also have a reputation as a very nice guy. That may be why I was not a completely successful CEO.
Maybe there is a difference between guys who start their own companies and those who rise to the top through scheming, backstabbing, and sabotaging. That isn’t to say Bezos isn’t a shrewd businessman but he focused his underhanded scheming outward rather than at his coworkers.
While there is plenty of psycopathy in Silicon Valley, it seems like the author is dissapointed that SV psycopaths aren’t his psycopaths.
I’d rather they not aggressively censor their platforms. All the hand-wringing about people being able to communicate right-wing messages on a public forum is a bit rich, considering that they’ve spent billions and are paid billions by spy agencies to manipulate their users for the left. It’s become a maniacal obsession with these people: How do we mind-control the sheep? How do we tailor what they see and who they hear to force their hand? How do we become sufficiently brutal in the syncrhonized-shunning-olympics to punish our political enemies?
I’d also rather they not allow “kinder” “empathetic” social manipulators (psycopaths themselves all too often) to infiltrate and corrupt their organizations in yet another hellish direction.
At this point I just want these people to go away. The internet had such promise, and this is what they’ve made of it. A civilizational disgrace.
BTW: The question was never answered: Why did silicon valley become infested with psycopaths?
And a question of my own: Why are these tiny companies making ad-revenue backed social platforms able to defy all laws of economics, never turn a profit and yet value themselves at trillions of dollars? That facebook can be worth more (and command more credit) than several-dozen of our largest industrial firms that actually make things put together is ludicrous.
Since when has the advertising sector ever dwarfed the sectors it advertised for in any sanely valued economy?
Total advertising expenditures for all U.S. companies in 2019 were estimated at $240.7 billion.
Here’s a contrast for you. The global market for space launch in 2019 was estimated to be $9.88 billion. Proctor & Gamble and Walmart together spent almost that much on advertising that same year ($7.1 billion for P&G, $2.75 billion for Walmart).
It isn’t just advertising. Data mining FB, social media, internet traffic, and financials is a huge market as well. That information is used for all kinds of things.
“Why did silicon valley become infested with psycopaths?”
Because well trained psycopaths make better leaders of agile companies, because they brutally follow the data and the people skills are not important when dealing with engineers. (Well, as long as the engineers don’t have a say, anyway)
Psychopaths have great people skills. Dealing with the foibles of engineers is easy for them.
I don’t find psychopathic CEOs surprising at all. People want to have a leader that exudes insane levels of superiority and confidence. Many people will suspend any reasonable doubts and just go with the flow because:
a) everyone else is doing it
b) CEOs and their cabals are nominally powerful enough to make success for underlings very difficult if any doubt is voiced
c) Evidence of the CEOs failings is carefully hidden by the CEO and their cabal
d) A group lead by a psychopathic leader is capable of producing very impactful results. Sometimes for evil, sometimes for good.
e) People want to be on the winning bandwagon
Most of us are familiar with the “Emperor has no clothes” story. It’s a very strong pattern of human behavior.
It’s a more interesting question, with a much shorter answer, to list the CEO type leaders that ARE NOT displaying psychopathic behaviors.
If you want to have an accurate, nuanced discussion of pros and cons of $X, don’t go to a CEO/President/Marketing … you need to find that somewhere else
I’ve had dealings with Elon Musk, and have met Jeff Bezos. Elon was always such a nice guy, almost shy. I like him. Jeff was a perfect gentleman, very pleasant to speak with. Those are snapshots, and I’m sure that the dark side of each can be…well, dark. Heck, I probably have a side some people would regard as dark, yet I also have a reputation as a very nice guy. That may be why I was not a completely successful CEO.
Maybe there is a difference between guys who start their own companies and those who rise to the top through scheming, backstabbing, and sabotaging. That isn’t to say Bezos isn’t a shrewd businessman but he focused his underhanded scheming outward rather than at his coworkers.