If I didn't expend synaptic activity, I would end up like the RMC Clock Tower in 1991.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Mandatory Psychopath Test For Corporate Board Members
If society is to recover from scandalous public traded corporation actions during the 2008 Depression, then fresh ideas and tough rules should be in place.
Lack of investor confidence in the stewards of large corporations decreases the investment rate, which raises the cost of borrowing, decreases economic activity, and prolongs the depressed nature. If this situation is to change, then the underlying condition should change.
One way to restore the reputation of all publically-traded corporations is to enact a law that forces all company board of directors members, board of directors chairmen, and company presidents to take the psycopath test, and fail it.
This isn't some cosmetic accounting law like Sabane's Oxley. Many deviant corporate players simply created accounting loops around the rules to keep theft off the books. There is no accounting rule that can't be twisted.
On the other hand, if you prevent psychopaths from reaching the management levels, then there are less risky people in charge of everyone else's resources.
The psychopath test, known as the Hare Test, or the Hare Psychopathy Checklist is a carefully created test to spot those with psychopathic tendencies. It is not an absolute determinant. If a person can act psycopathic, then there is a risk of behavior that will jeopardize shareholder value.
Seems like a wildly unfair, anti-democratic law? Here is what the Hare test screens for:
Factor 1: Interpersonal/Affective
Lack of investor confidence in the stewards of large corporations decreases the investment rate, which raises the cost of borrowing, decreases economic activity, and prolongs the depressed nature. If this situation is to change, then the underlying condition should change.
One way to restore the reputation of all publically-traded corporations is to enact a law that forces all company board of directors members, board of directors chairmen, and company presidents to take the psycopath test, and fail it.
This isn't some cosmetic accounting law like Sabane's Oxley. Many deviant corporate players simply created accounting loops around the rules to keep theft off the books. There is no accounting rule that can't be twisted.
On the other hand, if you prevent psychopaths from reaching the management levels, then there are less risky people in charge of everyone else's resources.
The psychopath test, known as the Hare Test, or the Hare Psychopathy Checklist is a carefully created test to spot those with psychopathic tendencies. It is not an absolute determinant. If a person can act psycopathic, then there is a risk of behavior that will jeopardize shareholder value.
Seems like a wildly unfair, anti-democratic law? Here is what the Hare test screens for:
Factor 1: Interpersonal/Affective
- Glibness/superficial charm
- Grandiose sense of self-worth
- Pathological lying
- Cunning/manipulative
- Lack of remorse or guilt
- Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
- Callousness; lack of empathy
- Failure to accept responsibility for his or her own actions
- Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
- Parasitic lifestyle
- Poor behavioral control
- Lack of realistic long-term goals
- Impulsiveness
- Irresponsibility
- Juvenile delinquency
- Early behavior problems
- Revocation of conditional release
- Criminal versatility
The True Nature of Science
People arrive at the wrong opinion of science, mainly because they arrive at the same conclusions about the people of science as they do about the people of every walk of life.
Science is not about being right, but about becoming right.
No one man, let alone one scientist - as smart as they think they are, can come up with a complete a perfect theory about nature. Look at Newton. We all know his famous theories and his invention of gravity, calculus etc. But some of us also know he was a pompous, self-serving ass. As a man, he was flawed and not always good. But his work and his theories were right and fundamental to all that followed. His ideas changed how we work in the world.
No one claims a scientist is perfect, or even all that useful. But when a scientist does work that build upon the work of others, it expands our knowledge of nature and even the universe itself. The work of one person is not presumed to be right. It is laughed at and dissected. Other rival scientists will expose all the mistakes and wrong-headedness of the inventor. Experiments will prove or disprove the theory.
From that chaos, truth will be exposed. The results always improve what we understand.
Science itself is a vicious, messy business where egos and reputations are won and lost by claiming to understand small parts of the universe, expanding on the ideas of others, and competing in the arena of doubt. This process succeeds because all this effort expands and improves the knowledge of all by individuals fending for themselves. Standing on the shoulders of giants, scientists expand the boundaries of understanding.
Scientists must fend for themselves. No one is beholden to the denizens of science. Some will survive to see their ideas flourish. Others will be pushed to obscurity. The only constant winner is society.
Compare this with teachings of religion. Since a Pope was freshly minted, let's compare science with the Catholic Church. The Pope is the elected head of Catholic Church. He is a Cardinal that becomes the Vicar of Christ, the moral and administrative head of 1 million Catholics. He lives in a country beyond law of anyone but himself. He is given all the respect and status of a Head of State like an elected President. He purportedly speaks on behalf of God (the one God), Jesus, and the Holy Spririt. His word is taken as if it was spoken by God et. al.. He sets policy, makes judgements on others, and orders his followers to obey all the weird and confusing rules of Catholicism.
With this important role it all seems like his judgement must be above question. Since he is so important and has so much power, his will must be superior. How can you question his decisions?
It seems to make sense until you find out how he was chosen to fill such a role. Was he dropped from heaven in a thunderclap, with a mighty storm of dark clouds and lightning clearing the way? Was his arrival announced by angels, carrying him downwards from clouds after getting his starting instructions from God himself? Did he appear in a blinding flash of light - revealed from the centre of an impossible-to-survive physical phenomenon.
No, he was chosen by a secret ballot of other cardinals. Using paper and a press conference.
The might and power of a Pope's position belies the sad reality that he is mortal and no less fallable than the rest of us. He must make mistakes and he must be wrong at least some of the time. Cardinals will openly interpret his work, disapprove of his directions, and complain privately and publicly about the mistakes made.
If you are a Catholic, then by the rules you are supposed to suspend your skepticism and follow the Pope. You have to agree with all the directions of one man and his interpreters.
But if you are a citizen, you can listen to any scientist you want, take their advice, and heed or ignore their recommendations. You have the power over the theories you wish to believe. The best part is, all the right theories can be proven. Any good scientist can show you how to run the experiments for yourself and see the results. You can see most science in operation.
Don't think so? Guess what drives a car, belief or an internal combustion engine (Thermodynamics, calculus, materials science, Physics...)? How does an airplane fly, with observance of holy days or the Bernoulli effect.
Science is not about being right, but about becoming right.
No one man, let alone one scientist - as smart as they think they are, can come up with a complete a perfect theory about nature. Look at Newton. We all know his famous theories and his invention of gravity, calculus etc. But some of us also know he was a pompous, self-serving ass. As a man, he was flawed and not always good. But his work and his theories were right and fundamental to all that followed. His ideas changed how we work in the world.
No one claims a scientist is perfect, or even all that useful. But when a scientist does work that build upon the work of others, it expands our knowledge of nature and even the universe itself. The work of one person is not presumed to be right. It is laughed at and dissected. Other rival scientists will expose all the mistakes and wrong-headedness of the inventor. Experiments will prove or disprove the theory.
From that chaos, truth will be exposed. The results always improve what we understand.
Science itself is a vicious, messy business where egos and reputations are won and lost by claiming to understand small parts of the universe, expanding on the ideas of others, and competing in the arena of doubt. This process succeeds because all this effort expands and improves the knowledge of all by individuals fending for themselves. Standing on the shoulders of giants, scientists expand the boundaries of understanding.
Scientists must fend for themselves. No one is beholden to the denizens of science. Some will survive to see their ideas flourish. Others will be pushed to obscurity. The only constant winner is society.
Compare this with teachings of religion. Since a Pope was freshly minted, let's compare science with the Catholic Church. The Pope is the elected head of Catholic Church. He is a Cardinal that becomes the Vicar of Christ, the moral and administrative head of 1 million Catholics. He lives in a country beyond law of anyone but himself. He is given all the respect and status of a Head of State like an elected President. He purportedly speaks on behalf of God (the one God), Jesus, and the Holy Spririt. His word is taken as if it was spoken by God et. al.. He sets policy, makes judgements on others, and orders his followers to obey all the weird and confusing rules of Catholicism.
With this important role it all seems like his judgement must be above question. Since he is so important and has so much power, his will must be superior. How can you question his decisions?
It seems to make sense until you find out how he was chosen to fill such a role. Was he dropped from heaven in a thunderclap, with a mighty storm of dark clouds and lightning clearing the way? Was his arrival announced by angels, carrying him downwards from clouds after getting his starting instructions from God himself? Did he appear in a blinding flash of light - revealed from the centre of an impossible-to-survive physical phenomenon.
No, he was chosen by a secret ballot of other cardinals. Using paper and a press conference.
The might and power of a Pope's position belies the sad reality that he is mortal and no less fallable than the rest of us. He must make mistakes and he must be wrong at least some of the time. Cardinals will openly interpret his work, disapprove of his directions, and complain privately and publicly about the mistakes made.
If you are a Catholic, then by the rules you are supposed to suspend your skepticism and follow the Pope. You have to agree with all the directions of one man and his interpreters.
But if you are a citizen, you can listen to any scientist you want, take their advice, and heed or ignore their recommendations. You have the power over the theories you wish to believe. The best part is, all the right theories can be proven. Any good scientist can show you how to run the experiments for yourself and see the results. You can see most science in operation.
Don't think so? Guess what drives a car, belief or an internal combustion engine (Thermodynamics, calculus, materials science, Physics...)? How does an airplane fly, with observance of holy days or the Bernoulli effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)