LinkedIn posts from 2018, part two.
Put people into groups and the individuals have an incentive to be good/nice. An individual living in a far-off cave probably does not care about good and bad. However, in a group, people uphold all sorts of moral codes to try to the nicer one or the better one or the nicest/best one.
This greed, moral righteousness, is partly the cause of insanity in religious and political groups. The attempt to be good reveals that one is not good. People ask, "should we not even make an attempt?" Yes, you shouldn't attempt to be good. If you were nice, there's no point in acting nice. It's like a guy's attempting nicety to get with a girl. The attempt to be nice means he is not genuine. The only way you can actually be good is by stop trying to be good.
This is why I am suspicious when people act nice and carefree when they do not. Moral righteousness is an extremely powerful motivator, these "nice people" capable of the evilest.
"The highest virtue is not virtuous. Therefore, it has virtue,"Lao Tsu.
People who say sweet stuff may be the most hypocritical. If you actually cared about someone, you really do not need to say it. You care not for him to think that you do. You care because you think it is the right thing to do or because you are naturally inclined to or because of some other reasons that are not greed and selfishness.
Those who say all the time that they care probably don't care about you. If they did, they would not have to care about you. They also may be insecure about whether they care or not, which is why they are hoping to choose to care, which again means that they do not care. They may also just be playing with your mind or following a moral code that obligates them to care, none of which is care.
And I won't even start on "the more they fake, the more they deplete their ego, the more frustrated and stressed out they get, leading them to become crueler and crueler". I am not suggesting pessimism rather a more laid-back attitude towards people who admittedly care too much. Peace.
There is so much talk on "be you". No one seems to explain what it means to be "me". If I say, "I am x, y, and z", it sounds as if I am trying to be x, y, and z, meaning I am neither x nor y nor z. It seems that the definition of "me" cannot be prior to being me. As long as it is, "being me" becomes a chase. Another way to think of it is that "being you" cannot be consciously and intentionally undertaken. If it is, how then is it "being you"?
Therefore, "being you" cannot mean holding on to something but letting yourself go. It is not doing what you consider "your values and interest" but letting yourself follow itself, like a river that flows not because she wants to flow but because "to flow" is she. If she didn't flow, she would be a pond. She isn't being a river, yet she is just being a river.
If you want to be nice to people, it may mean you aren't nice to people. All "I wannas" seem to be vicious cycles of ego fulfillment. When these "I wannas" are given up, you find yourself attuned with people because your ego stops coming in between.
There is so much stuff on "respect others, love others, care for others, etc." Most of that is futile.
If you choose to respect someone, it means you do not respect him. If you choose to care about someone, it means you do not care about him. To care and to love are both selfless acts, so the self (one that makes a choice) has to be eliminated for either to happen. In fact, it is only when you do not choose to care can you possibly care.
Never show fake love and care. Fake show without feelings can never motivate actions that support your words. This gap in words and actions makes you anxious, unsatisfied, diffident, almost frustrated with yourself. Some, as a result, start to hide from people, avoid eye contact, wear a pair of headphones, etc. Therefore, do not be nicer, kinder, or more loving than you naturally are. Let yourself be yourself.
There is no such thing as brutally honest. You can be honest. Everything else you can be is not honest but dishonest.
Some job postings are so full of shit. I mean 10-15 years of experience really? If you are 25, it means you have to wait until 35. Do I have to remind everyone that people hardly lived that long in the 18th century?
If you love on the condition that they love you back, you actually love your own self. It's also called greed. There's only one love, and that is unconditional by default, by definition.
Micromanagement is like postmodern liberalism. The boss gets cocky, thinking he knows better, instructs people more than they need to be instructed, numbs their minds, and sucks their freedom. The workforce feels trapped. Everyone's actions and speech are closely monitored. Everything they do is considered politically incorrect or illegal (intended allusion). In the end, you have a deadbeat, robotic, and less productive workplace.
However, their getting cocky is also the best part of it. Now, young entrepreneurs and better companies can beat down companies whose legal framework swelled out of control. I like micromanagement when a competitor is doing it.
I don't satirize private entities, because they can be replaced when they fail. When the government swells up and micromanages, there are no competitors. When it rains in this case, it pours.
Why is America so obsessed with economic decisions? People help their friends, pay for their mother's cancer treatment, and donate. All these decisions are economically wrong. Apparently, economists have tricked institutions into thinking that good decisions are economic. Are they necessarily getting wealthier?
So many policies are laid out solely because some economic research found that number of jobs would increase and people would make more money. That is hogwash. Can we consider if those jobs would reflect the natural interests of the labor market and the natural needs of consumers? If not, we would have people doing jobs they do not want to do to solve problems that do not exist, while jobs they want to do not exist and needs of consumers remain unmet.
See the government can artificially create a job that is carrying a bucket of water 10 meters, emptying it, and doing it again. They can pay the man, but he would be miserable doing it because he does not have a why. He isn't contributing to society. A job is more than a money function. People need to get over money-based decision making and invest energy into what needs to be done and what is important. Important decisions make people wealthy.
I often get tired of people wondering how to get more followers and likes on Instagram and also of coaches who tell people how to do that. I wish people were more interested in the process rather than the results because that's where the game is. When people care about likes and followers too much, they cheat on the work. There is a reason why people think they are wasting their time consuming viral videos. They got no value out of the videos. The producer produced viral videos but cheated on value.
If you study to get a job not to study, you'll cheat on your studies. If you work not to work but to earn money, you'll cheat on your work. This misalignment is partly why some have years of education but know hardly anything, and some have years of work experience yet go out of business, like Blockbuster and Cable TV. To learn, you must not cheat, or years of experience will not amount to much.
I am surprised at how many research findings are pathetically repetitive. Since graduation, aided by my perpetual unemployment, I have consumed an insane amount of academic journals (Economics, Public Policy, Management), and I am not pleased.
Only if folks in management had reviewed literature in psychology, they would have not wasted time finding the same things again and again. Even folks in economics are testing propositions that psychologists tested long ago. Perhaps, categorization among social sciences and humanities has put people into boxes.
Now on books, some of them are absolutely horrible and a waste of paper. However, they have good reviews and are often bestsellers. I am afraid people give these authors good reviews so they can get good reviews when they publish.
Reading books is definitely overrated. Very few books are worth the time. The rest are worth only a skim. Sometimes, lesser-known books have the best stuff. William J. Hudon's Business Without Economics is one of those books.
"What kind of experience do you have?"
"What do you mean, work, academic, or life experience?
"Work or academic."
I didn't expect her to remove life. People remember and learn from their life experiences much more than they do from work or academic experiences. Someone who ran 100 miles or went on a hunting expedition or raised 5 children has skill sets much more concrete than those who just worked or went to school. I am amazed she ignored the most important kind of experience, the kind that makes people who they are.
I want to get clear on one more reason why I am inclined not to go to grad school. Assistantship may avail some tuition rebate and some stipend, but nothing really is free. Someone is unwillingly paying taxes, which the government uses to partly fund higher education. Undergrads also pay extremely high tuition, while post-grads may get away with it. Therefore, grad school looks doable(in my case) because of such redistribution of money. Now, I am hardcore pro-market, pro-free economy. I would rather go beg people for money, give them gratitude in return, instead of living off their taxes and tuition money, and feeling entitled to it. This is a strategic decision. I am not against all redistribution, but that's a discussion for another day.
I have started to detest firms that push for sales, for they treat people badly. Dear firms, you exist because people exist, not the other way round. Therefore, what people want is much more important than you want (sales). At my firm, I am tired of all salesmen talks and all "how to sell more" talks.
Not one of them sees that NO ONE LIKES THEM. When they call, people don't want to talk, so they have to manipulate them. Why? Because they have no brand.
Well then, how you make money? You make less money. If you want to make more, solve a bigger problem. Give more. Don't just repeatedly sell the same stuff to people who don't want them.
If I keep it real, the entire marketing curriculum I underwent can be taught in 6 months, provided the learner has a reason to learn. In the market, a learner has to learn in order to live off his skills. He must learn fast. In college, he can doze off hoping to receive a pathetic point curve. Plus, money is a reinforcement much stronger than grades.
Colleges are slow. Students are forced to learn things they do not want to learn. They end up losing time and money. They don't learn much either. In less than a month at my insurance company, I have learnt more about sales and insurance than I did in college.
"Are these robots more valuable than I, a real human?"
I am afraid jobless people would think that in the future. Minimum wage hikes and its possibility incentive businesses to make their own humans. The growth in AI appears to be artificially powered by labor market regulations.
Unless America lets the market decide labor costs, I see a future where unemployment will rise. As we know already, unemployment creates monsters among men. It may worsen if the government feeds them with unemployment money.