hos234

World War 3 starts.

Personal data stored in banks/ISPs/FB/Google etc are taken at gun point and used for population scale psychological warfare.

Kissinger(World Order)/Niall Ferguson(Square and the Tower)/Graham Allison(Thucydides Trap)/Moises Naim(End of Power) say networks of power are more and more unstable similar to 1914.

To maintain stability they(irrespective of ideology) keep pandering to their fan clubs and therefore get more and more inflexible.

Small triggers turn into national and then international conflict between major powers.

Kissenger's reasons - 1 The international economic system has become global the political structure of the world has remained based on the nation-state. 2. Acquiescing in the proliferation of nuclear weapons far beyond the Cold War club, so multiplying the possibilities of nuclear confrontation. 3. The new realm of cyberspace, in which asymmetry and a kind of congenital world disorder are built into relations between powers

The last time it took 30 years 1914-1945, after about 100 years of peace between the world powers, for everyone to take a breath and reboot to happen.

This time around the reboot should be much quicker. The nukes will get dropped faster, because thanks to tech all the major powers can do serious damage to each other very fast as soon as things escalate beyond control.

Dominic Cummings, Steve Bannon, Olavo de Carvalho, Amit Shah, endless number of similar clones in EU...just amazing to watch what kind of people are getting propped up by the attention economy.

Temple Grandin does talks about this stuff but it's more along the lines of awareness raising. Join that mailing list...might be a good place to find people that are trying the same thing.

Ironically where I worked, the person had it easy getting the Leadership position. They too had serious experience, expertise in a subject, had produced products that had benefited the company. So upper mgmt approved it despite internal objections being raised about interpersonal comms, a track record of dealing badly with others in stressful situations etc. They actually made the person report to me, because I had some experience managing the person in the past and I said no. Told the person what issues would arise, which resulted in a HR complaint against me. My case to mgmt was simple - if you guys think this is going to work, you need someone who is psychologically knowledgable about the condition for the person to report to. That's the healthiest option and we all knew there was no one around like that. So they made an even bigger mistake of giving the person a team and not having to report to anyone. It blew up in dramatic fashion and I did get an apology from the person later for mistaking what my point had been.

You have to be clear about what leadership is and why you fit. The answer shouldn't be well thats the next rung I see on the org chart.

Are they saying a Current is spontaneously emerging and disappearing?

I have had experience with someone who wanted to do this and it didn't go well. A subject matter expert wanted to be team leader because that's what he thought career progress was. Within a few weeks the team collapsed.

Creativity, unconventional thinking, hyperfocus etc is required as support to conventional leaders more than in being leaders. It's not just about improving communication. You have to be much more social, political, be good at handling stress, people have to want to work for you etc and you have to do it competing against experienced people for who that stuff is natural.

The way ahead maybe to think up a role that fits your strengths and then pitch it to higher ups, more than trying to fit into roles that are conventional. Just remember that conventional roles haven't been designed with your strengths in mind.

Which country?

Good points about familiarity and regularity. There is a lot of scope to improve online spaces by bringing those elements in. And maybe getting rid of/reducing - infinite scroll addictive news streams + upvotes/likes/retweet/counter stuff which I guess distracts everyone from connecting.

If you are interested in Third Place stuff, Howard Shultz talks about how that philosophy is behind the success of Starbucks much more than the coffee :)

Once upon a time I worked at a Video host for news and other content publishing companies. They track (and in many cases decide) what you watch as you jump from site to site.

They know exactly what kind of people (personality trait wise) will keep clicking the next vid recommended. They actively seek out these personality trait combos and hit them with the right vids. And then ads.

It's very sophisticated because their player is embedded on so many sites spanning so much different type of content that profiling people becomes almost automatic. And also hooked into all the ad networks which have their own profiling data. The only reason we haven't reached mind control abilities yet is Psychology/Neuroscience as fields are still very young and are playing catch up - as in what do you do after you identify an addict, a sociopath, a psychopath? It's easier to identify (and trigger certain behaviors) than it is known what should be done, that is in the interest of the individual and society in all cases.

Its much more clear what benefits the corporation. "Keep showing the person with issues stuff because hey its free revenue"

For example, they know triggering/negative content energizes people more than positive content. And the most "energized" people will keep producing more content to feed into the machine that keeps the addicts coming back. So the system automatically has a selection bias for certain content producers and content types.

In many cases, in different parts of the world, what can be done even after you identify bad actors/people with issues etc is limited because capacity to do it doesn't exist. There are more cops per 100K people than there are shrinks by a large factor. So the response of society to negative content that triggers misguided behavior is almost always Violence or some form of taking away peoples rights.

Monetization also sets up this game, where if you (content producer/advertiser/distributor etc) don't cash in on a money making pattern some one else will. So lots of people in the ecosystem get trapped there and don't see ways out.

But as the public begins to realize the consequences of all this targeting/profiling, on kids, on the workforce, on consumers, on the defense establishment, on politics, on journalism etc liability questions are snowballing.

Depends on size of the project. They do it often actually. Sometimes after they have decided to move internal maintainers/teams elsewhere, or don't have budgets to support the project anymore, or the company strategy has changed etc

That's when they suddenly develop a great affection for the "community" and "giving back" :)

In large orgs it can be a costly process for large codebases. Requires a bunch of planning. Large codebases (sometimes with code from acquisitions/different source control systems/clients/sold off divisions etc) are full of all kinds of stuff (stolen code, proprietary code licensed from others, non attributed open source stuff, server passwords, user data etc etc) that no one knows anything about. All that needs to be checked sometimes by a large number of tech people and then legal teams to make sure no one gets sued.

I agree everyone has an agenda but if they are all just playing the same move - Tit for Tat - provoke-react then what happens? Nothing. Stalemate.

Someone has to use some imagination and change the way they play the game. Right now, one day propaganda of one side wins and another day propaganda of another side wins. Its a trap.

It's like an arms race. With no Winner. Sort of like World War I trench warefare.

John le Carré had a good quote, cant remember in which book, which went something like - There are always some people in the population, who if you invite into a group want to control it, and if you kick them out treat the group as a conspiring enemy.

By hand one Excel cell at a time :) It's why they get paid well.

Doesn't the pie chart show to make others laugh, to protect others feelings, to maintain social norms, for economic/personal advantage (usually benefits family), to escape harm (again usually benefits your family when you don't get yourself killed while dealing with evil) etc

Both honesty and lying are tools. You choose how you use them. Whether to benefit others or to take advantage of others is a choice you make.

But there will be situations where the tool of honesty wont work, and if you walk into those situations having convinced yourself that lying isn't a tool available, then people who don't think that way will be better prepared than you to handle those situations.

Basically be aware where lies can be used. Don't just dismiss it totally as only useable for evil.

During Hitler's rise people like to point at the Honest folk who stood up against him like Carl Goerdeler, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. But there were people like Wilhelm Canaris who lied day in day out and did all kinds of damage and saved a whole lot of lives.