Without getting into a lengthy dissertation on the Feminist Movement and Women's Liberation, I will jump straight to what we've reaped as a result. In our zeal to be declared equal we've surrendered much that distinctly marks us as feminine. Worse, we continue to perpetuate the most awful of stereotypes—only magnified by 100. The most damning of these is The Shrew.....
Like reverse sexism, this belittling of men seems to be 100 percent acceptable. It's even used as the tie that binds in building female relationships—commiserating over the "miserableness" of the male species. I understand it can be hard to make friends when meeting people for the first time, but making your husband the butt of jokes is not the way to endear yourself to me. It's not just insulting to your husband but to me as well, a single woman who would love to have a spouse to promise to honor and respect. It's like waving a steak in front of a starving person and proclaiming it tastes like garbage and tossing it to the floor.
"Like reverse sexism, this belittling of men seems to be 100 percent acceptable."
The Anchoress pointed out an interesting article called "Shrews" by Katrina Fernandez:
Can countries benefit from having their domestic firms acquired by foreign companies?
When a foreign company acquires a domestic firm, it often leads to outcries of indignation, nostalgia (�another of our once great companies in foreign hands�), and calls for legislation to prevent any more foreign poaching. Politicians and union leaders proclaim that the foreign owners may not be dedicated to keep up investment in the subsidiary, and that the take-over threatens national jobs and other economic interests. �Most governments are reluctant to see their corporate treasures fall into foreign hands�, the BBC wrote in an article devoted to the topic.
But is all this (slightly xenophobic) fear justified? Well, maybe not; at least not on all dimensions. Because we have increasing evidence that foreign ownership of a firm may actually also benefit firms, specifically in terms of their innovativeness. And this increased innovativeness may clearly benefit the host country.
Professor Annique Un, from Northeastern University in Boston, for example, did a pointy study. She collected data on 761 manufacturing firms operating in Spain, examined which ones were foreign hands and what their innovation output was in terms of new products introduced in the market. And the answer was pretty clear: foreign owned firms were more innovative than purely domestic firms.
Interestingly, Annique also corrected her models for the amount of R&D investments spent in the companies, and it turned out that this was not what was driving it; foreign owned companies were not just more innovative because they were investing more. Instead, they were more innovative irrespective of R&D. As a matter of fact, they were able to generate more product innovations for the same level of investment; meaning that they were simply better at it.
The study�s results suggested that they were better at it for two reasons. First, foreign parents seemed to use their domestic subsidiary to channel innovation into the country. Put differently, it seemed a foreign-owned company could tap into its parent�s superior repository of innovative stuff, and most of them gratefully made ample use of that option. Secondly, the foreign-owned companies were simply also better at coming up with new stuff on their own, in comparison to their domestic counterparts. Apparently, something about them being foreign-owned stimulated them to be more agile and creative, which resulted in more product introductions.
Whatever the reason behind this foreign-driven surge in innovation, the host country was better off for it; the evidence clearly showed that the foreign mercenaries stimulated diversity in the markets, giving customers more choice, while raising the bar for everyone. And this is not a benefit we hear many politicians, newspapers, and union leaders proclaim and acknowledge, when yet another foreign corporation is eyeing up their country�s corporate treasures.
But is all this (slightly xenophobic) fear justified? Well, maybe not; at least not on all dimensions. Because we have increasing evidence that foreign ownership of a firm may actually also benefit firms, specifically in terms of their innovativeness. And this increased innovativeness may clearly benefit the host country.
Professor Annique Un, from Northeastern University in Boston, for example, did a pointy study. She collected data on 761 manufacturing firms operating in Spain, examined which ones were foreign hands and what their innovation output was in terms of new products introduced in the market. And the answer was pretty clear: foreign owned firms were more innovative than purely domestic firms.
Interestingly, Annique also corrected her models for the amount of R&D investments spent in the companies, and it turned out that this was not what was driving it; foreign owned companies were not just more innovative because they were investing more. Instead, they were more innovative irrespective of R&D. As a matter of fact, they were able to generate more product innovations for the same level of investment; meaning that they were simply better at it.
The study�s results suggested that they were better at it for two reasons. First, foreign parents seemed to use their domestic subsidiary to channel innovation into the country. Put differently, it seemed a foreign-owned company could tap into its parent�s superior repository of innovative stuff, and most of them gratefully made ample use of that option. Secondly, the foreign-owned companies were simply also better at coming up with new stuff on their own, in comparison to their domestic counterparts. Apparently, something about them being foreign-owned stimulated them to be more agile and creative, which resulted in more product introductions.
Whatever the reason behind this foreign-driven surge in innovation, the host country was better off for it; the evidence clearly showed that the foreign mercenaries stimulated diversity in the markets, giving customers more choice, while raising the bar for everyone. And this is not a benefit we hear many politicians, newspapers, and union leaders proclaim and acknowledge, when yet another foreign corporation is eyeing up their country�s corporate treasures.
Andrew Klavan has an interesting post up on the book Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength.
Is Television Portraying Men in a Better Light?
I wondered about this as I watched the new show last night "Person of Interest." The show is about a different person each week who is either the victim or perpetrator of a violent crime and of course, the "good guys" who put a stop to it before it happens.
In the season premiere, the "person of interest" is a woman, Diane Hanson, an assistant DA for the city. Naturally, it is thought that she is going to be the victim of the crime, perhaps targeted by a gang she is prosecuting or her ex-boyfriend who works in the same office. It turns out, Hanson, the pretty DA, is actually the ring leader of a group of bad cops who she tells to kill her ex who seems to be on to them. So score one for the ex who is actually the good guy here.
I have also noticed in a few commercials lately that it is the wives, not the husbands who are put in a worse light. In one phone commercial, a man tells his wife that he got a contract for a cell phone and she mutters about how wasteful he is with money and how he doesn't consult her when spending money. It turns out, he got the phone for free and and she looks shocked and shuts up.
In another State Farm commercial, a guy is talking to his agent in the middle of the night innocently while his wife comes downstairs, yelling at him for talking to what she thinks is a woman he is involved with. The male agent is shown at the end of the commercial in his cubicle while the husband just looks slightly exasperated with his jealous wife. These commercials aren't the best but I wonder if it shows that the tide is turning with the "men are idiots and cheaters" theme.
What do you think? Do you see examples where men are portrayed on television in a more positive light or have I just cherry-picked a few examples that are not part of a trend?
In the season premiere, the "person of interest" is a woman, Diane Hanson, an assistant DA for the city. Naturally, it is thought that she is going to be the victim of the crime, perhaps targeted by a gang she is prosecuting or her ex-boyfriend who works in the same office. It turns out, Hanson, the pretty DA, is actually the ring leader of a group of bad cops who she tells to kill her ex who seems to be on to them. So score one for the ex who is actually the good guy here.
I have also noticed in a few commercials lately that it is the wives, not the husbands who are put in a worse light. In one phone commercial, a man tells his wife that he got a contract for a cell phone and she mutters about how wasteful he is with money and how he doesn't consult her when spending money. It turns out, he got the phone for free and and she looks shocked and shuts up.
In another State Farm commercial, a guy is talking to his agent in the middle of the night innocently while his wife comes downstairs, yelling at him for talking to what she thinks is a woman he is involved with. The male agent is shown at the end of the commercial in his cubicle while the husband just looks slightly exasperated with his jealous wife. These commercials aren't the best but I wonder if it shows that the tide is turning with the "men are idiots and cheaters" theme.
What do you think? Do you see examples where men are portrayed on television in a more positive light or have I just cherry-picked a few examples that are not part of a trend?
How to Win a Fight or Dodge a Lawsuit?
Which is more important? I thought about this question as I read through a new book on fighting called How to Win a Fight: A Guide to Avoiding and Surviving Violence written by Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder. I was excited to see my copy show up in the mail and I started reading to see if I could gain some insight into how to increase one's self-defense moves.
I had previously interviewed Lawrence Kane, the author of The Little Black Book of Violence: What Every Young Man Needs to Know About Fighting for a PJTV show and one of the things that struck me about Kane and the other authors in this self-defense genre is how much focus is placed on avoiding a lawsuit or jail. Yes, those are good goals to have, but better ones are avoiding losing your life or your limbs.
The book starts out with a warning that self-defense is legal but fighting is illegal. "Readers are encouraged to be aware of all appropriate local and national laws relating to self-defense, reasonable force, and the use of weaponry, and act in accordance with all applicable laws at all times." Next, a foreword by Sergent Rory Miller emphasizes how bad you will feel if you killed someone in self-defense. He goes on to let you know that "Maybe the relatives of the guy who attacked you, though they have been afraid of him for years, come out of the woodwork and get a small army of attorneys and start remembering how he was 'a good boy, very caring'...." These family members and their attorneys will be looking to take your money from you. Or, you could end up in jail for defending yourself.
Then, in a chapter called "Use Only as Much Force as the Situation Warrants", Kane and Wilder ask the question, "Is it really better to be judged by twelve than carried by six?" Their response? "We do not advocate that sentiment because we feel that it trivializes the seriousness of violent confrontations. Never forget that if you are found guilty in a jury trial, you will be spending a whole lot of time in a confined environment... Even if you don't go to prison, you could lose your job, suffer the consequences in you family and community, etc." To the authors' credit, they do point out that "under no circumstances should you let your fear of legal consequences keep you from living through a violent encounter... If you don't survive, everything else is meaningless." Good advice.
As far as the rest of the book goes, absolutely read it if you are interested in learning the tactics of self-defense. It is terrific in that area. The chapters on awareness, the seven mistakes to avoid in a fight and how to use your words as a weapon are invaluable.
My problem is that the real readers of this book are likely to be highly civilized middle-class people who are likely to hesitate too long to defend themselves, not too quick to throw a punch. Yes, I wish the criminals who need this book would read it but they won't. If they thought that far ahead, they wouldn't be criminals. The average American is probably not aggressive enough in self-defense, rather than too aggressive. If you don't believe me, remember that most people passively hide under a desk during mass school shootings which often leads to the person being shot or killed. J.Reid Meloy, author of Violence Risk and Threat Assessment, points out that those who are aggressive or who have the opportunity to run away are more likely to live through an attack like this.
Having a flexible strategy that will help you survive when approached with violence is imperative, this book will help you be prepared to find one that just might work.
I had previously interviewed Lawrence Kane, the author of The Little Black Book of Violence: What Every Young Man Needs to Know About Fighting for a PJTV show and one of the things that struck me about Kane and the other authors in this self-defense genre is how much focus is placed on avoiding a lawsuit or jail. Yes, those are good goals to have, but better ones are avoiding losing your life or your limbs.
The book starts out with a warning that self-defense is legal but fighting is illegal. "Readers are encouraged to be aware of all appropriate local and national laws relating to self-defense, reasonable force, and the use of weaponry, and act in accordance with all applicable laws at all times." Next, a foreword by Sergent Rory Miller emphasizes how bad you will feel if you killed someone in self-defense. He goes on to let you know that "Maybe the relatives of the guy who attacked you, though they have been afraid of him for years, come out of the woodwork and get a small army of attorneys and start remembering how he was 'a good boy, very caring'...." These family members and their attorneys will be looking to take your money from you. Or, you could end up in jail for defending yourself.
Then, in a chapter called "Use Only as Much Force as the Situation Warrants", Kane and Wilder ask the question, "Is it really better to be judged by twelve than carried by six?" Their response? "We do not advocate that sentiment because we feel that it trivializes the seriousness of violent confrontations. Never forget that if you are found guilty in a jury trial, you will be spending a whole lot of time in a confined environment... Even if you don't go to prison, you could lose your job, suffer the consequences in you family and community, etc." To the authors' credit, they do point out that "under no circumstances should you let your fear of legal consequences keep you from living through a violent encounter... If you don't survive, everything else is meaningless." Good advice.
As far as the rest of the book goes, absolutely read it if you are interested in learning the tactics of self-defense. It is terrific in that area. The chapters on awareness, the seven mistakes to avoid in a fight and how to use your words as a weapon are invaluable.
My problem is that the real readers of this book are likely to be highly civilized middle-class people who are likely to hesitate too long to defend themselves, not too quick to throw a punch. Yes, I wish the criminals who need this book would read it but they won't. If they thought that far ahead, they wouldn't be criminals. The average American is probably not aggressive enough in self-defense, rather than too aggressive. If you don't believe me, remember that most people passively hide under a desk during mass school shootings which often leads to the person being shot or killed. J.Reid Meloy, author of Violence Risk and Threat Assessment, points out that those who are aggressive or who have the opportunity to run away are more likely to live through an attack like this.
Having a flexible strategy that will help you survive when approached with violence is imperative, this book will help you be prepared to find one that just might work.
Don�t be mistaken, bankers kill (but they give life too)
"In terms of power and influence, you can forget the church, forget politics. There is no more powerful institution in society than business� the equally famous as illustrious CEO and founder of the BodyShop � the late Dame Anita Roddick � said. And of course she was right. The most comprehensive and dominant institution in today�s society is business.
Business is more influential than people often realize, simply because it creates � or destroys � wealth. And wealth impacts pretty much anything we care about. Whether you analyze crime rates in a particular country, malnutrition, happiness, or infant mortality; a huge influence is how wealthy the particular society is. And wealth is created by business.
As a consequence, for example, the 2008 banking crisis undoubtedly killed people. Infant mortality is closely related to wealth and consequently an economic crisis will among others lead to a surge in infant mortality, somewhere, in some country down the road. It also means that the strategic business choices made by CEOs such as Lehman�s Richard Fuld or RBS�s Fred Goodwin indirectly but significantly influence the survival chances of some baby boy or girl born on the outskirts of London, Cairo, or Detroit. And therefore, whether you like it or not, bankers kill.
But let�s not forget that they give life too. The inverse of �bankers kill� is true too. If banks make wise choices, given their pivotal role in our economies, they can trigger a huge boost to the prosperity of many industries. And the profits, employment, and general wealth created through this boost will really improve the health and survival chances of the baby cradled by her mother somewhere on the outskirts of London, Cairo, or Detroit.
Given the research we have on the link between economic prosperity and infant mortality it would not even be too onerous to come up with some estimate of the direct relationship between Royal Bank of Scotland�s balance sheet and the probability of a baby surviving. We could relatively easily calculate the link between profit and the number of lives saved. I could even imagine that the computer terminals that give live updates of a company�s fluctuating share price � which many corporations have dotted across their entrance halls and offices for everyone to see � would be reprogrammed to display the number of children�s lives saved. Traders walking over to their lunch break could have an immediate update of how many baby lives the deal they just closed saved � or destroyed.
A ridiculous thought? Why? Don�t you care (even) more about the life or death of a baby than your company�s fluctuating share price? I am guessing you do. And you know these bankers aren�t so different from (other) human beings. Your company�s performance also creates wealth, and wealth saves lives. Why then only monitor its financial performance? I tell you, the sandwich you�re having for lunch will taste a whole lot better, knowing that this morning you just saved some unknown baby�s life, somewhere on the outskirts of London, Cairo, or Detroit.
Business is more influential than people often realize, simply because it creates � or destroys � wealth. And wealth impacts pretty much anything we care about. Whether you analyze crime rates in a particular country, malnutrition, happiness, or infant mortality; a huge influence is how wealthy the particular society is. And wealth is created by business.
As a consequence, for example, the 2008 banking crisis undoubtedly killed people. Infant mortality is closely related to wealth and consequently an economic crisis will among others lead to a surge in infant mortality, somewhere, in some country down the road. It also means that the strategic business choices made by CEOs such as Lehman�s Richard Fuld or RBS�s Fred Goodwin indirectly but significantly influence the survival chances of some baby boy or girl born on the outskirts of London, Cairo, or Detroit. And therefore, whether you like it or not, bankers kill.
But let�s not forget that they give life too. The inverse of �bankers kill� is true too. If banks make wise choices, given their pivotal role in our economies, they can trigger a huge boost to the prosperity of many industries. And the profits, employment, and general wealth created through this boost will really improve the health and survival chances of the baby cradled by her mother somewhere on the outskirts of London, Cairo, or Detroit.
Given the research we have on the link between economic prosperity and infant mortality it would not even be too onerous to come up with some estimate of the direct relationship between Royal Bank of Scotland�s balance sheet and the probability of a baby surviving. We could relatively easily calculate the link between profit and the number of lives saved. I could even imagine that the computer terminals that give live updates of a company�s fluctuating share price � which many corporations have dotted across their entrance halls and offices for everyone to see � would be reprogrammed to display the number of children�s lives saved. Traders walking over to their lunch break could have an immediate update of how many baby lives the deal they just closed saved � or destroyed.
A ridiculous thought? Why? Don�t you care (even) more about the life or death of a baby than your company�s fluctuating share price? I am guessing you do. And you know these bankers aren�t so different from (other) human beings. Your company�s performance also creates wealth, and wealth saves lives. Why then only monitor its financial performance? I tell you, the sandwich you�re having for lunch will taste a whole lot better, knowing that this morning you just saved some unknown baby�s life, somewhere on the outskirts of London, Cairo, or Detroit.
Is Modern-Day Wheat Dangerous?
I am in the middle of a book called Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health. I have always wondered if I had celiac disease but never been tested so figured it couldn't hurt to give this book a try.
The book is written by cardiologist William Davis who says that thanks to the actions of Big Food and government agencies such as the USDA and places like the American Heart Association that are always pushing "whole grains," we are sicker and fatter than ever.
Davis discusses how modern-day wheat can be dangerous and can lead to weight gain, diabetes, heart disease and neurological disorders. "Wheat," the book says, "has changed dramatically in the past 50 years under the influence of agricultural scientists who have genetically altered it beyond recognition with little or no questioning of whether these agricultural "evolutions" are compatible with human health."
Have you tried getting off wheat? If so, did it help?
The book is written by cardiologist William Davis who says that thanks to the actions of Big Food and government agencies such as the USDA and places like the American Heart Association that are always pushing "whole grains," we are sicker and fatter than ever.
Davis discusses how modern-day wheat can be dangerous and can lead to weight gain, diabetes, heart disease and neurological disorders. "Wheat," the book says, "has changed dramatically in the past 50 years under the influence of agricultural scientists who have genetically altered it beyond recognition with little or no questioning of whether these agricultural "evolutions" are compatible with human health."
Have you tried getting off wheat? If so, did it help?
What's Wrong with being an Alpha Male?
Apparently, a lot according to this Wall Street Journal article entitled "Are Alpha Males Healthy?":
The article mentions a book called Alpha Male Syndrome.
I took a look at it on Amazon and found that is written by a psychologist and her husband who "steer Alphas and those who work with them away from dysfunction and towards productivity in this action-oriented book that may miss its overconfident primary target." So being an alpha male is "dysfunctional?"
While it is possible that alphas are more stressed and that betas have a more relaxing life, I'm not so sure. Betas have their own problems, we may just not have enough research and understanding of beta men to see the impact on their psychological life and on society. It seems to me that this article and book is more of an exercise in steering masculine men towards acting more like women, though in a subtle way by saying "being an alpha is bad for your health, it could kill you."
Do you think being an Alpha male is unhealthy? If so, is being a Beta better?
It isn't easy being an alpha male. Getting to the top and staying there takes a physical toll.
The latest evidence comes from wild baboons in Kenya's Amboseli basin. Researchers from Princeton and Duke universities studied 125 males in five groups over nine years and found that while the alpha males got the best food and the most mates, they experienced far more stress than the beta males just beneath them in the hierarchy, based on the levels of cortisol, a stress hormone, in fecal samples.
The beta males had almost as many mates and got just as much grooming from others, but they didn't have to spend as much time fighting or following females around to keep other males away.
The article mentions a book called Alpha Male Syndrome.
I took a look at it on Amazon and found that is written by a psychologist and her husband who "steer Alphas and those who work with them away from dysfunction and towards productivity in this action-oriented book that may miss its overconfident primary target." So being an alpha male is "dysfunctional?" While it is possible that alphas are more stressed and that betas have a more relaxing life, I'm not so sure. Betas have their own problems, we may just not have enough research and understanding of beta men to see the impact on their psychological life and on society. It seems to me that this article and book is more of an exercise in steering masculine men towards acting more like women, though in a subtle way by saying "being an alpha is bad for your health, it could kill you."
Do you think being an Alpha male is unhealthy? If so, is being a Beta better?
The new Almanac of American Politics
Today, I flipped through a new copy of Michael Barone's The Almanac of American Politics 2012. The Almanac is amazing as it profiles every member of Congress and every governor as well as census data and "information on topics ranging from campaign expenditures to voting records to interest group ratings."
George Will calls it the "Bible of American Politics" and I can understand why. Barone's updated book is amazingly detailed and gives the reader political information about every region in the US. It's a great reference if you're a political junkie or would just enjoy the challenge of reading 1838 pages.
George Will calls it the "Bible of American Politics" and I can understand why. Barone's updated book is amazingly detailed and gives the reader political information about every region in the US. It's a great reference if you're a political junkie or would just enjoy the challenge of reading 1838 pages.
John Hawkins interviews Lee Doren about his new ebook Please Enroll Responsibly: Avoiding Indoctrination at College.
"Feminism can be thought of as like a corporation."
Barbara Oakley, author of Cold-Blooded Kindness, is interviewed at Times Higher Education:
"Feminism can be thought of as like a corporation. It's interested in its constituents. Well-meaning feminists are often trained only to see a certain way, only to support their constituents. That is partly what underlies the spurious research on battered-woman syndrome. Anyone who questions whether battered women are only simple victims is put in the pillory and crucified."
Read the rest here.
"Feminism can be thought of as like a corporation. It's interested in its constituents. Well-meaning feminists are often trained only to see a certain way, only to support their constituents. That is partly what underlies the spurious research on battered-woman syndrome. Anyone who questions whether battered women are only simple victims is put in the pillory and crucified."
Read the rest here.
Does the College Essay Suck the Life Out of Boys?
So it's pouring rain here in Knoxville and I spent the afternoon reading a terrific book called Crazy U: One Dad's Crash Course in Getting His Kid Into College.
If you have a teen getting ready to apply to college, this is a great read and it's hilarious to boot.
The author, Andrew Ferguson, goes through the process of trying to help his son get into college and starts by discussing the lengths parents are going to to try and get their kids into a selective school. Some are even hiring $40,000 college counselors years before their kid applies to college to guide them through the process. Wouldn't it be easier just to give the kid forty grand and tell them to start their own business? But perhaps that is too simplistic.
One thing that caught my eye was how hard and depressing it was for the son to try and write the college essay. Many of the colleges ask for an essay about the student's "inner life"--usually a buzz word for some kind of sappy self-absorbed nonsense where the student "took a risk" of some kind and went on to become a better person or some variation of that theme.
In the book, Ferguson's son finally spits out a couple of paragraphs about his experience at a camp where there was a swimming test and he managed to swim the required distance while the rest were defeated. In the essay, the son wrote that he was "tired but proud; he sympathized with his classmates who hadn't finished and in his victory, accepted modestly, he learned the timeless value of persistence and determination, expressed with grim earnestness..."
But his father knew the truth: "which was the masculine truth. He didn't remember the race because it proved the timeless value of persistence. He remembered the victory because it was a victory: he had competed against this classmates, friends and rivals alike, and beaten them soundly and undeniably, and earned the right to a sack dance in the end zone. He knew he couldn't say this, though, and I knew he was right."
And that pretty much sums it up for the rest of college. Trying to please a bunch of people who care more about a PC stance than critically thinking with passion. It's no wonder that boys and men are bypassing college.
If you have a teen getting ready to apply to college, this is a great read and it's hilarious to boot. The author, Andrew Ferguson, goes through the process of trying to help his son get into college and starts by discussing the lengths parents are going to to try and get their kids into a selective school. Some are even hiring $40,000 college counselors years before their kid applies to college to guide them through the process. Wouldn't it be easier just to give the kid forty grand and tell them to start their own business? But perhaps that is too simplistic.
One thing that caught my eye was how hard and depressing it was for the son to try and write the college essay. Many of the colleges ask for an essay about the student's "inner life"--usually a buzz word for some kind of sappy self-absorbed nonsense where the student "took a risk" of some kind and went on to become a better person or some variation of that theme.
In the book, Ferguson's son finally spits out a couple of paragraphs about his experience at a camp where there was a swimming test and he managed to swim the required distance while the rest were defeated. In the essay, the son wrote that he was "tired but proud; he sympathized with his classmates who hadn't finished and in his victory, accepted modestly, he learned the timeless value of persistence and determination, expressed with grim earnestness..."
But his father knew the truth: "which was the masculine truth. He didn't remember the race because it proved the timeless value of persistence. He remembered the victory because it was a victory: he had competed against this classmates, friends and rivals alike, and beaten them soundly and undeniably, and earned the right to a sack dance in the end zone. He knew he couldn't say this, though, and I knew he was right."
And that pretty much sums it up for the rest of college. Trying to please a bunch of people who care more about a PC stance than critically thinking with passion. It's no wonder that boys and men are bypassing college.
John Hawkins at PJM Lifestyle: "Quit Your Terrible Job Now! 7 Tips for Tomorrow’s Entrepreneurs." A commenter to this post by the name of Yooper makes a good point:
Another commenter by the name of Capn Rusty states:
Good advice.
Here’s Tip #10 – Be aware that the political environment has a direct impact upon your business, virtually any business. Don’t be one of those who says that you have no interest in politics. I didn’t have much interest in politics until I realized that what occurs in Washington can make or break my business in short order.
Another commenter by the name of Capn Rusty states:
Tip 8: Pick an industry or market segment that is totally unregulated, like software development in the early 90′s, or . . . blogging in the early 00′s.
Good advice.
Why so Quick to Call Business Leaders Psychopaths?
I was reading an article over at CNBC entitled "Think Your Boss Is a Psychopath? That May Be True."
I have to wonder about this study and the way that CNBC presented this article. It makes it sound like business leaders who are psychopaths are a dime a dozen. Why are they picking on business leaders and the corporate world? Is it because the study authors or CNBC have it in their own minds that corporate bosses are corrupt, kind of like the author of this kooky article entitled "Capitalism: A System Run By and For Psychopaths"?
I have taken a continuing education course from Robert Hare, the co-author of the book mentioned above and in the course, he told us that it is a very dangerous thing to diagnose someone with psychopathy. We dealt in the course with adults and juveniles who were jailed for violent and other crimes. Often times, Hare and his colleagues would warn us to be very careful in our diagnosis, lest someone who was charged with a crime end up being discriminated against because of the psychopathy label if untrue. Shouldn't his co-author, Paul Babiak, use the same good advice? Should he use a study of only 200 people to make such a generalization?
Why business leaders? Why not study SEIU members or liberal politicians? Where is that study?
In a recent study of more than 200 executives, nearly 4 percent scored at or above the traditional cutoff for psychopathy using the Psychopathy Checklist, which researchers regard as the "gold standard" for assessing this personality disorder, said Paul Babiak, one of the researchers who conducted the study and co-author of the book, "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work."
By contrast, just 1 percent of the general population is categorized as having psychopathic tendencies. Admittedly, it’s just one study, but it suggests that business leaders could be four times as likely to be psychopathic than the average person....
In fact, he often uses the phrase "parasitic predator" to describe corporate psychopaths. "They are parasitic in that they are looking for a host to support them," he said. "A big company is an easy place in which to hide."
I have to wonder about this study and the way that CNBC presented this article. It makes it sound like business leaders who are psychopaths are a dime a dozen. Why are they picking on business leaders and the corporate world? Is it because the study authors or CNBC have it in their own minds that corporate bosses are corrupt, kind of like the author of this kooky article entitled "Capitalism: A System Run By and For Psychopaths"?
I have taken a continuing education course from Robert Hare, the co-author of the book mentioned above and in the course, he told us that it is a very dangerous thing to diagnose someone with psychopathy. We dealt in the course with adults and juveniles who were jailed for violent and other crimes. Often times, Hare and his colleagues would warn us to be very careful in our diagnosis, lest someone who was charged with a crime end up being discriminated against because of the psychopathy label if untrue. Shouldn't his co-author, Paul Babiak, use the same good advice? Should he use a study of only 200 people to make such a generalization?
Why business leaders? Why not study SEIU members or liberal politicians? Where is that study?
How Bad will the Job Picture Get?
I just read that the job growth in August was zero. I believe it after my experience a couple of weeks ago in Atlanta. I was there on business and went over to Lenox Square Mall. On the way, I ran into a beautiful woman who said she was heading over to a job interview. I figured she was going for a job as a model or high level manager of a hotel or organization--given the way she was dressed. "Wish me luck!" she exclaimed as she headed off the elevator we were on. As I headed into the mall later, she was in a long line of women, all gorgeous and all meticulously turned out. The line was long and went around the store. What jobs were these women applying for? A co-manager or clerk at the Forever 21 store opening up at the mall. All of them looked eager and frankly, a bit desperate for a job. But in Atlanta, where the unemployment is high, people seemed happy just to be working when I talked to them in cabs or in restaurants. How much worse will it get? I don't know, but I think as more businesses "go John Galt" in the Obama economy, much worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)