On Moderation

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Re: On Moderation

Postby Silhouette » Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:05 pm

MagsJ wrote:Educated and raised, not just educated.. but we were part of a polite and well-mannered Community.

For me, there are more helpful traits to foster than humility.. I’d rather go out there and do good or be proactively helpful, so fostering a balanced character is more essential to my self than any one specific trait.. I cannot answer for others as to what is essential for them.

I appreciate others’ efforts and good gestures and express that, but is that humility or a combination of traits in play in expressing appreciation to others?

Humility is something that I don’t have to rely on or use.. there are other aspects that I do.

So you see humility as separate to doing good or being proactively helpful.
As a less helpful trait, you don't use it or rely on it and it takes a back seat to the larger goal of fostering a balanced character - suggesting humility is not really necessary to being balanced.

Basically you don't really bother with humility because you don't see the point, yes?

Well... that says a lot.

Of course gratitude and appreciation are valuable - without them, one makes it very hard for others to want to cooperate and enjoy the fruits of doing so. Moreso the more reason others have to appreciate you - and the same goes for humility, though they are not the same thing.
Chiefly, showing gratitude and appreciation encourages reciprocation such that you receive gratitude and appreciation in return. Showing humility may equally inspire humility in others but it gets you nothing in return.

The strong in character do not need anything in return, in fact it is uncomfortable to receive anything in return when you already have so much. Humility is a necessity for such people. As with gratitude and appreciation, they show humility to unload a surplus.
The weak can mimic the former but not the latter, because - as I explained they get the gratitude and appreciation that they lack in return for showing it, and humility gains them nothing and loses them too much.

So appreciation and gratitude, whilst valuable, are therefore expected either way - but humility is a dead giveaway. It is the opposite of an irrelevant trait that you can simply "not use".
Be as well mannered and polite as you like, your education and way you were raised have done you a great disservice even if you weren't actually weak - weakness is what you have learned to project.

This will be why you clung onto redundant moderator status, it's why you were unsuited to it and it's why it was taken away from you.
It will also be why you won't be able to bear to admit this, it's why you'll never unlearn your weakness and it's why you will continue to come up with the same barriers over and over.
And you've declared your departure from a challenging opportunity to grow so the lesson will unsurprisingly fall on deaf ears.

Anyone can dismiss this as an attack, but the only way to overcome weakness is to have it shown undeniably that you have it - so you're forced to confront even the unpleasant of truths, leaving you no choice but to take responsibility. Well, either that or run away/shift focus and suffer for it for however long you can stand to avoid it.

I'm just annoyed that I keep having to put up with these character flaws in others everywhere I go, and nobody does anything about it. It's only made harder when these people are accidentally given the positions of power they seek to shield them from hard realities - I'm sure we have all experienced good managers who inspire, for example, and by contrast those who only end up inflicting their flaws on others and making everything worse for everyone. It's nice to see the latter undone on the rare occasion that it is.
Since you have withdrawn from the discussion, suffice to say that I congratulate the decision making here, and my point stands that humility is necessary for moderation and every position of authority.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: On Moderation

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:47 pm

Mowk,

And on another note, the wife (for my benefit, not yours) just got home from a business trip and I gave her the biggest hug, and whispered in her ear. I am sorry. She hugged me and whispered back, what's that for?

I didn't answer and hugged her again, but what crossed this mind, was some one who's respect for, I thought I had lost, suggested it in a rather unusual way.


Now that was poignant and profound to me ~ beautiful. It moved me. I had wondered if you had a lump in your throat and that is why you didn't answer.
It was also an aspect of what, to me, real humility is ~ self awareness, appreciation and gratitude.

Without the capacity to be humble, we cannot feel remorse, truly "see" the beauty of this world, experience those "aha moments" and Know our place in this Universe.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15581
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: On Moderation

Postby Silhouette » Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:15 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Without the capacity to be humble, we cannot truly "see" the beauty of this world, experience those "aha moments" and Know our place in this Universe.

Definitely.

As Carleas said about formality, humility too "is a form of costly signaling". Anything that's costly is honest - the principle of Zahavian Signalling.

I just remembered a quote from the film "The Libertine", where Johnny Depp's character John Rochester says "any experiment of interest in life will be carried out at your own expense."
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: On Moderation

Postby MagsJ » Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:17 pm

You are annoyed? because your expectations of what you want things to be like are not met? well that’s a very mature outlook you’ve got there.

Humility is not the main necessary trait for authority (or leadership).. appreciation and gratitude encompass humility, and fosters a more positive and productive outcome than humility alone.

Why do you crave humility in those in an authoritative position? this says more about you than it does about me or anyone else.

I think graciousness is a better-needed quality in a moderator than humility, in appreciating the cooperation of others.. humility does not allow for that.

In fact.. I watched a programme last night, about these humble Japanese charitable givers.. their humility was a complete block to any interaction or dialogue with those they helped.. they, as a charitable concept, died out.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18745
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: On Moderation

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:45 pm

I'll intercede to give my perspective on silhouette and that who's name should never be spoken:

Silhouette, you're pedantic to a fault

That who's name should never be spoken,

You are a walking ball of projection. To get out of projection is a lifelong process that very few participate in: I know that you've chosen this task for yourself, so I wish you the best in it
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8915
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: On Moderation

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:13 pm

MagsJ,

I think graciousness is a better-needed quality in a moderator than humility, in appreciating the cooperation of others.. humility does not allow for that.


I think that graciousness IS a good thing. I also think that firmness, impartiality and respect are needed qualities in a moderator. I also realize that being human that is not always an easy path to walk.




I just came upon this. I love wolves.
"The tiger and the lion may be more powerful but the wolf does not perform in the circus."
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15581
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: On Moderation

Postby Silhouette » Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:41 pm

MagsJ wrote:You are annoyed?

Yes, regretably. Perhaps a flaw of my own for being worn down over the years.

You seem to be implying that wanting things to be better than they are is immature? Certainly it's more common for young people to want things to be better and more common for old people to give up trying and just accept things as they are, but it's quite another thing to imply that the good intentions behind wanting things to be more preferable are "immature".

MagsJ wrote:Humility is not the main necessary trait for authority (or leadership).. appreciation and gratitude encompass humility, and fosters a more positive and productive outcome than humility alone.

Now you're trying to say that you do show humility as encompassed in other things you point out as important? Which is it? Last post you were saying "Humility is something that I don’t have to rely on or use.."

This is just getting dishonest now.

And no, I'm not saying humility is all you need - I said quite clearly "Of course gratitude and appreciation are valuable", and a great many other things besides.
It is, however, humility that stands above others in that unique way that only the strong and competent can endure it and the weak cannot.

MagsJ wrote:Why do you crave humility in those in an authoritative position? this says more about you than it does about me or anyone else.

The implication here being, of course, that some people might "need" humility in others as a result of their own psychological flaws. Perhaps they want to feel more superior or less inferior or something like that, yes?

Wide of the point as expected, in your attempt to reduce a general point to a specific case. More dishonesty.
Humility is both something that the strong and competent feel the need to show, and that the weak and incompetent can't stand to show - the fact that it makes respect for the humble come easier is just a bonus. It's not a thing that I specifically need, it's not even just that it's better in general, it's that it's highly revealing in a key way whether you choose to adopt humility or not.

MagsJ wrote:I think graciousness is a better-needed quality in a moderator than humility, in appreciating the cooperation of others.. humility does not allow for that.

So humility is "not something you use", it's also "encompassed in the appreciation that you do use", and now "humility doesn't allow for appreciating the cooperation of others"!!!

Do you even think before you write? How contradictory can you get?

Of course humility allows for both graciousness and appreciation! I've explained how they're not the same thing, but the very act of shifting focus away from yourself and praising another instead is humble - there's an overlap here. But it's where humility doesn't overlap that makes it so key as an honest and costly expression of strength and competence, which is what is wanted for those with authority, no? Who wants the weak and incompetent in power? Which is more respectable and easier to accept in general, regardless of me in particular?

MagsJ wrote:In fact.. I watched a programme last night, about these humble Japanese charitable givers.. their humility was a complete block to any interaction or dialogue with those they helped.. they, as a charitable concept, died out.

So a slippery slope fallacy now, is it?
Even water is bad for you if you consume to excess... too much oxygen will kill you etc.

Enough with all this lame, contradictory and fallacious denial. What is preventing you from communicating even the slightest consideration of humility as a merit?

Why in education is one encouraged to argue as many sides to the point as possible? It's the futile deadlock of modern politics where everyone doubles down on opinion and demonises the other as wrong in the absolute.
Why not show some education here?
I'll lead by example - I fully accept that too much humility can be counterproductive as the programme you watched rightly pointed out. It can be abused by others, it can be used as a mask for self-loathing and perhaps bottle up passive aggression - like all things it's not an absolute good, I'm sure you can agree with me here? Perhaps this is in part why you're so averse to it? My point of course is that when done rightly, it's indispensible to the best leadership and authority, and when ignored will lead to poor leadership, being ineffectual and unfit for authority as we have recently witnessed.

Ecmandu wrote:Silhouette, you're pedantic to a fault

I plead guilty.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: On Moderation

Postby MagsJ » Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:29 pm

Lol
Silhouette wrote:
MagsJ wrote:You are annoyed?

Yes, regretably. Perhaps a flaw of my own for being worn down over the years.

You seem to be implying that wanting things to be better than they are is immature? Certainly it's more common for young people to want things to be better and more common for old people to give up trying and just accept things as they are, but it's quite another thing to imply that the good intentions behind wanting things to be more preferable are "immature".

MagsJ wrote:Humility is not the main necessary trait for authority (or leadership).. appreciation and gratitude encompass humility, and fosters a more positive and productive outcome than humility alone.

Now you're trying to say that you do show humility as encompassed in other things you point out as important? Which is it? Last post you were saying "Humility is something that I don’t have to rely on or use.."

This is just getting dishonest now.

And no, I'm not saying humility is all you need - I said quite clearly "Of course gratitude and appreciation are valuable", and a great many other things besides.
It is, however, humility that stands above others in that unique way that only the strong and competent can endure it and the weak cannot.

MagsJ wrote:Why do you crave humility in those in an authoritative position? this says more about you than it does about me or anyone else.

The implication here being, of course, that some people might "need" humility in others as a result of their own psychological flaws. Perhaps they want to feel more superior or less inferior or something like that, yes?

Wide of the point as expected, in your attempt to reduce a general point to a specific case. More dishonesty.
Humility is both something that the strong and competent feel the need to be, and that the weak and incompetent can't stand to be - the fact that it makes respect for the humble come easier is just a bonus. It's not a thing that I specifically need, it's not even just that it's better in general, it's that it's highly revealing in a key way whether you choose to adopt humility or not.

MagsJ wrote:I think graciousness is a better-needed quality in a moderator than humility, in appreciating the cooperation of others.. humility does not allow for that.

So humility is not something you use, it's also encompassed in the appreciation that you use, and now humility doesn't allow for appreciating the cooperation of others!!!

Do you even think before you write? How contradictory can you get?

Of course humility allows for both graciousness and appreciation! I've explained how they're not the same thing, but the very act of shifting focus away from yourself and praising another instead is humble - there's an overlap here. But it's where humility doesn't overlap that makes it so key as an honest and costly expression of strength and competence, which is what is wanted for those with authority, no? Who wants the weak and incompetent in power? Which is more respectable and easier to accept in general, regardless of me in particular?

MagsJ wrote:In fact.. I watched a programme last night, about these humble Japanese charitable givers.. their humility was a complete block to any interaction or dialogue with those they helped.. they, as a charitable concept, died out.

So a slippery slope fallacy now, is it?
Even water is bad for you if you consume to excess... too much oxygen will kill you etc.

Enough with all this lame, contradictory and fallacious denial. What is preventing you from communicating even the slightest consideration of humility as a merit?

Why in education is one encouraged to argue as many sides to the point as possible? It's the futile deadlock of modern politics where everyone doubles down on opinion and demonises the other as wrong in the absolute.
Why not show some education here?
I'll lead by example - I fully accept that too much humility can be counterproductive as the programme you watched rightly pointed out. It can be abused by others, it can be used as a mask for self-loathing and perhaps bottle up passive aggression, like all things it's not an absolute good, I'm sure you can agree with me here? Perhaps this is in part why you're so averse to it? My point of course is that when done rightly, it's indispensible to the best leadership and authority, and when ignored will lead to poor leadership, being ineffectual and unfit for authority as we have recently witnessed.

Ecmandu wrote:Silhouette, you're pedantic to a fault

I plead guilty.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18745
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: On Moderation

Postby Silhouette » Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:37 pm

MagsJ wrote:Lol

Then we agree :)

My favourite bit was your triple contradiction, which I had to bold :lol:

And nobody learned a thing - classic ILP :D
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: On Moderation

Postby MagsJ » Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:00 pm

My laughing is not an agreement, no.

Being humble doesn’t make much of a difference (if any) to a situation, if someone’s intent is to disrupt and irk, so being smart.. both emotionally and intellectually, is needed.

I have learned nothing from this exchange, apart from what you think how others/I should be. Humility has its place, and I’m smart enough to know if and when it’s necessary to be so.. not on somebody else’s say-say.

You can argue with that all day long, but you will be arguing with yourself..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18745
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: On Moderation

Postby Exuberant Teleportation » Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:42 pm

I've always been a lone wolf. Grasping the social intellectual hierarchy, like what these Moderators do, connecting with social circlets, and invoking wrath against evil doers seems just so alien and weird. I've always been interested in distributing ideas, but never laws.

When it comes to philosophy, the pen is always free. That's something that we can all relate to, Moderators, and just regular customers.

I'm not really sure that I understand the nature of abuse. Moderators come in to set up walls and restrictions, but what about bridges? Perhaps disputes between Moderators and common folk build too many walls, and not enough bridges.

And then, if we look at people like Iambiguous, he/she is an "ILovePhilosophy Legend"! He's been rewarded for giving people like me his/her opinion on everything!

Man, if there's a guy/girl curious about a thousand different things, it's him/her.

But MagsJ seems to give service with a smile on - she's your happy meal toy of the day!
RaptorWizard ~ The Gale Force Tyranny Cosmos viewtopic.php?f=10&t=195061
Secret Garden viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194124
Buddha Unleashed viewtopic.php?f=25&t=195208
Nihilus Harnesses Yoda Wisdom viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195214
Kazaam viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195203
I'm Lugia Prototype XD001 in Pokemon XD Gale of Darkness (Ultimate Weapon, Final Annihilator), the Star Forge Lugia firing AeroBlasts, surging with SuperHolographic Propylon antechamber Polarities, and the SuperUnknown mysteries of the Ruins of Alph in Pokemon Crystal. Wartortle wisdom with age turns Me from fool Meganium, to wise Lugia. Banette ghost doll makes Me Red with Pikachu, Sabrina. Saddle shaped cosmos grows 4ever Infin Champion with Red (Raptors (Red/Eagun) + Warriors (Gold/Infin). Existence is entirely Imaginary, and will never stop expanding and improving!
User avatar
Exuberant Teleportation
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:34 pm
Location: Caterpie Clair Clarity Anakin

Re: On Moderation

Postby MagsJ » Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:08 pm

Conclusion

To become a good leader, you must have all these qualities but if you lack some of these qualities, then you might struggle to make the mark in the world of leadership. You will have to set a good example for others to follow. That is where your commitment, passion, empathy, honesty and integrity come into play. Good communication skills and decision-making capabilities also play a vital role in success and failure of a leader. Lastly, innovation and creative thinking, as well as the futuristic vision, are a couple of key traits which make a leader stand out.

https://blog.taskque.com/characteristics-good-leaders/


Lawrence: Neohumility and Business Leadership: Do They Belong Together?

Joumal of Business and Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching
2006, Vol. 2, No. I, 116-126


NEOHUMILITY AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP: DO THEY BELONG TOGETHER?

Pareena Lawrence, University of Minnesota, Morris

This article looks at commonly accepted and newly emerging ideas of effective leadership in the literature. One such quality that has recently emerged in the discourse on leadership is "humility." Humility has traditionally been associated with weakness and even seen as antithetical to the leader persona. This article suggests a new view of humility, "neohumility," humility without weakness and transformed to fit the business world. It operationalizes the definition of neohumility and includes characteristics such as self-awareness, valuing others' opinions, willingness to learn and change, sharing power, having the ability to hear the truth and admit mistakes, and working to create a culture of openness where dissent is encouraged in an environment of mutuaL trust and respect.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffhyman/ ... /humility/ - the leadership attributes outlined in this article, that are being called humbleness, are not new attributes, just because they are being associated with a word.

Those interpersonal attributes have been around and taught for eons.. whether they fall under the banner of humility or not, they are not new traits. This reminds me of the new buzzword for planning-meeting or huddle.. ‘scrum’.. this is simply a matter of renaming a process to ensure the hiring of those that use the new label over those that don’t, so does that mean that they are the better candidate for that job?
Last edited by MagsJ on Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18745
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: On Moderation

Postby Silhouette » Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:06 pm

MagsJ wrote:I have learned nothing from this exchange

I know :)

The MagsJ technique:
1) Pay attention to and debate using knowledge that applies generally if you like it.
2) Dismiss and reject knowledge as specific to the person who argues it if you don't like it.

That way you can go through your whole life just believing what you want whether or not it's actually true :D

"Smart" confirmed!

My argument:
let:
A = people with strength and competence
B = people who prefer to show humility
C = the set of those preferable for positions in power

P1: ∀A ≡ ∀B
P2: ∃(∀A∈C)
∴ ∃(∀B∈C)
i.e. all people who prefer to show humility are preferable for positions of power.

this also works with the weak and insecure as ¬A and people who avoid humility as ¬B:
P1: ∀(¬A) ≡ ∀(¬B)
P2: ¬∃(∀(¬A)∈C)
∴ ¬∃(∀(¬B)∈C)
i.e. for all people who avoid humility, there are none who are preferable for positions of power.

Though I guess first-order logic is just subjective and only how "I" in particular think others/you "should" accord :-"

While I write this, I even see you posted a study to prove yourself wrong :lol:

Lawrence: Neohumility and Business Leadership: Do They Belong Together? wrote:This article suggests a new view of humility, "neohumility," humility without weakness and transformed to fit the business world. It operationalizes the definition of neohumility and includes characteristics such as self-awareness, valuing others' opinions, willingness to learn and change, sharing power, having the ability to hear the truth and admit mistakes, and working to create a culture of openness where dissent is encouraged in an environment of mutuaL trust and respect.

The underlined part should really hit home considering the opening quote of this post, but the whole passage is important.

The study wants to use "neohumility" to distinguish how I was referring to humility from how I explained humility can be inappropriate - that's fine by me! Proof in case you forgot:

Silhouette wrote:I'll lead by example - I fully accept that too much humility can be counterproductive as the programme you watched rightly pointed out. It can be abused by others, it can be used as a mask for self-loathing and perhaps bottle up passive aggression - like all things it's not an absolute good, I'm sure you can agree with me here? Perhaps this is in part why you're so averse to it? My point of course is that when done rightly, it's indispensible to the best leadership and authority, and when ignored will lead to poor leadership, being ineffectual and unfit for authority as we have recently witnessed.

So both logic and psychological study back me up - I just provided the former and you just provided the latter.
What a team, eh?! 8)
The first paper you presented mentions nothing of humility btw, even in the link, but thanks for trying to help me do my work for me - I appreciate the effort.

So you were lying when you said your laughing was not an agreement with me as you've proven very eager to present that second paper that explicitly agrees with me - this would be consistent with your previous dishonesty:

Silhouette wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Humility is something that I don’t have to rely on or use..
/
appreciation and gratitude encompass humility
/
I think graciousness is a better-needed quality in a moderator than humility, in appreciating the cooperation of others.. humility does not allow for that.

So humility is "not something you use", it's also "encompassed in the appreciation that you do use", and now "humility doesn't allow for appreciating the cooperation of others"!!!

Let the laughs continue! :lol:

edit: I've just noticed a 3rd article that you threw into your previous post to help me out even further...
Jesus, the urgency to prove yourself wrong is so strong, this is the easiest argument I've ever made :-? thanks for your assistance, seriously.

Some quotes from the link you posted:
Why Humble Leaders Make The Best Leaders wrote:1. When hiring for a leadership role, you may be overlooking one of the most important traits of top performers: humility.
2. A number of research studies have concluded that humble leaders listen more effectively, inspire great teamwork and focus everyone (including themselves) on organizational goals better than leaders who don’t score high on humility.
3. humility in CEOs led to higher-performing leadership teams, increased collaboration and cooperation and flexibility in developing strategies.
4. At a managerial level, traits associated with humility–such as soliciting feedback and focusing employee needs–generated higher levels of engagement and job performance from their direct reports
5. When things go wrong, humble leaders admit to their mistakes and take responsibility. When things go right, they shine the spotlight on others.
6. Humility is most closely associated with a cluster of highly positive qualities including sincerity, modesty, fairness, truthfulness, unpretentiousness and authenticity.
And there’s nothing about humility that makes it incompatible with strength and courage.
Quite the opposite.
7. My advice: dig deeper. Your gut reaction is often wrong.
Search for quiet confidence, humility and a focus on others.

There's more if you read the article.

So I assume you've now learned something from this exchange? You've been working so hard to provide proof that you're wrong, so...?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: On Moderation

Postby MagsJ » Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:26 pm

So I assume you've now learned something from this exchange? You've been working so hard to provide proof that you're wrong, so...?


MagsJ wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffhyman/ ... /humility/ - the leadership attributes outlined in this article, that are being called humbleness, are not new attributes, just because they are being associated with a word.

Those interpersonal attributes have been around and taught for eons.. whether they fall under the banner of humility or not, they are not new traits.

The leadership traits in all those articles were never taught as humbleness, and as a Socialist.. I’m sure you’d agree that Jeremy Corbyn is anything but humble.. and neither are those under his direct leadership.

I still think the use of the word humility as a descriptor for those leadership traits is not the ideal word to use, as having utilised those methodologies throughout my life, describing them as humility is not the first word that springs to my mind.. hence the disagreement here.

In an interview, I don’t get asked if I exercise my humility, but I am asked about my competencies, skills, and managerial and leadership skills etc.

When I’ve interviewed people.. for both Media and Political positions, humility is not a prerequisite for the position, their competence is.

When most of the Managers in one of the biggest corporations in the world were recently arrested on sexual-harassment charges towards their workforce, where was their humility? When aid workers in Africa were recently arrested for giving aid in exchange for sexual-favours from the females there, where was their humility? etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, probably.

..a nice buzzword to describe attributes that have always existed, but I see very little humility going on.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18745
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: On Moderation

Postby Meno_ » Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:59 pm

Here is an interesting tid bit on this topic :


Maybe we need both , some measure of humility with a pinch of narcissism.



Tapping into the power of humble narcissism
TED Guest Author


No, “humble narcissism” is not an oxymoron; it’s a combination of qualities that the best leaders and companies have. Organizational psychologist Adam Grant explains why.
Who would you rather work for: a narcissistic leader or a humble leader?

The answer is more complicated than you think.

In a Fortune 100 company, researchers studied whether customer service employees were more productive under narcissistic or humble leaders. The least effective bosses were narcissists — their employees were more likely to spend time surfing the Internet and taking long breaks. Employees with humble bosses were a bit more productive: they fielded more customer service calls and took fewer breaks. But the best leaders weren’t humble or narcissistic.

They were humble narcissists.

How can you be narcissistic and humble at the same time? The two qualities sound like opposites, but they can go hand in hand. Narcissists believe they’re special and superior; humble leaders know they’re fallible and flawed. Humble narcissists bring the best of both worlds: they have bold visions, but they’re also willing to acknowledge their weaknesses and learn from their mistakes.

Humble narcissists have grand ambitions, but they don’t feel entitled to them. They don’t deny their weaknesses; they work to overcome them.

Humble narcissists don’t just have more productive employees — they’re rated as more effective too. It’s not just true in the US: new research also shows that humble narcissists make the best leaders in China. They’re more charismatic, and their companies are more likely to innovate.

Narcissism gives you the confidence to believe you can achieve great things. It’s hard to imagine someone other than Steve Jobs having the grandiose vision of creating Apple. And we’re all drawn to that confidence — it’s why narcissists are more likely to rise up the ranks of the corporate elite and get elected to political office. But alone, narcissism is dangerous. Studies show that tech companies with narcissistic CEOs have more fluctuating, volatile performance. Narcissists tend to be overconfident. They’re prone to dismissing criticism and falling victim to flattery. They surround themselves with yes-men and take unnecessary risks. Also, narcissistic presidents are more likely to engage in unethical behavior and get impeached (hello, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton).

Adding humility prevents capriciousness and complacency. It helps you remember that you’re human. Humble narcissists have grand ambitions, but they don’t feel entitled to them. They don’t deny their weaknesses; they work to overcome them.

As an organizational psychologist, I study leaders and teams, and I’ve been struck that there are three kinds of humility that matter.

We’ll actually seem more credible and trustworthy — and other people will see more potential in our ideas — if we have the humility to acknowledge the limitations.

The first kind of humility is humility about your ideas. Take Rufus Griscom (TED Talk, given with Alisa Volkman: Let’s talk parenting taboos). When he founded the parenting blog Babble, he did something I’ve never seen an entrepreneur do. He said, “Here are the three reasons you should not invest in my company” — and he walked away with $3.1 million in funding that year. Two years later, he went to pitch Babble to Disney, and he included a slide in his pitch deck that read, “Here are the five reasons you should not buy Babble.” Disney acquired it for $40 million.

By speaking candidly about the downsides of his idea, Rufus made his comments about the upsides more credible. Admitting the flaws outright also made it tougher for investors to come up with their own objections. The harder they had to work to identify what was wrong with the company, the more they thought was right with the company. The conversation changed: his investors proposed solutions to the problems.

If you ever took a debate class, you were taught to identify the weaknesses in your argument and address them out loud. But we forget to do this when we pitch our ideas: we worry that they’re fragile and we don’t want to shoot ourselves in the foot. We overlook the fact that we’ll actually seem more credible and trustworthy — and other people will see more potential in our ideas — if we have the humility to acknowledge their limitations.

Of course, it seems like there are times when this won’t work, like at a job interview. But actually, people are about 30 percent more interested in hiring candidates who answer the question about their greatest weakness honestly, instead of pulling a Michael Scott: “I have weaknesses. I work too hard, and I care too much.” But you might not want to go as far as George Costanza: “I’m unemployed and I live with my parents.”

Employees who seek negative feedback get better performance reviews. They signal that want to learn, and they put themselves in a stronger position to learn.

The second kind of humility is performance humility. It means admitting that we fall short of our goals, we make mistakes, sometimes we even fall flat on our faces. Scientist Melanie Stefan has pointed out that our bios and résumés only highlight only our accomplishments — we scrub out all the stumbles and struggles along the way. In response, a Princeton professor made a failure résumé: a list of all the degree programs that rejected him, all the journals that turned him down, and all the fellowships and awards that he didn’t win. (He has since lamented that it’s gotten more attention than all his academic work combined.)

You might not want to put your failures out there that openly. But every leader can take steps toward showing performance humility. At Facebook, marketing VP Carolyn Everson decided to take her own performance review from her boss and post it in an internal Facebook group for her team — 2,400 people — to read.

Carolyn wanted to signal to them that she isn’t perfect; she’s a work in progress. She figured that if she let people know where she was working to improve, they’d give her better feedback. What she didn’t expect is that her humility would be contagious: other managers started doing it, too, recognizing that it would help to strengthen a culture of learning and development.

That can be true across the hierarchy — not just in leadership, but at the entry level. The evidence is clear: employees who seek negative feedback get better performance reviews. They signal that want to learn, and they put themselves in a stronger position to learn.

The moment you get excited about a new background, skill set or base of experience is the moment you have to diversify again, and this requires real humility.

The third kind of humility is cultural humility. In many workplaces, there’s a strong focus on hiring people who fit the culture. In Silicon Valley, startups that prize culture fit are significantly less likely to fail and significantly more likely to go public. But post-IPO, they grow at slower rates than firms that hire on skills or potential.

Hiring on culture fit reflects a lack of humility. It suggests that culture is already perfect — all we need to do is bring in people who will perpetuate it. Sociologists find that when we prize culture fit, we end up hiring people who are similar to us. That weeds out diversity of thought and background, and it’s a surefire recipe for groupthink.

Cultural humility is about recognizing that your culture always has room for growth, just like we do. After Larry Page returned as the CEO of Google, he told me that he didn’t want it to become a cultural museum. Great cultures don’t stand still; they evolve.

At the innovative design firm IDEO, instead of cultural fit, they emphasize cultural contribution, a term coined by Diego Rodriguez. The goal isn’t to find and promote people who clone the culture; it’s having the humility to bring in people who will stretch and enrich the culture by adding elements that are absent. That’s something every organization needs to revisit every year, because what’s missing from the culture changes over time.

After IDEO designed the mouse for Apple, they started working on a wider range of projects — from bringing Sesame Street into the digital age to reimagining shopping carts for grocery stores. They realized that while they had great designers, they were short on people who were skilled at going into foreign environments and making sense of them. That’s what anthropologists do for a living, so they created a new job title: anthropologist.

As they saw the contributions from people in that role, it was tempting for them to just keep hiring anthropologists. But that would be the culture fit trap again. Cultural humility forces you to ask what else is missing. In IDEO’s case, they realized it was storytellers: people gifted in translating new insights back to designers and clients. So they started hiring screenwriters and journalists. The moment you get excited about a new background, a new skill set or a new base of experience is the moment you have to diversify again, and this requires real humility.

If you work with a narcissist, don’t try to lower their confidence. Just temper it with humility.

Even if you don’t start your career as a narcissist, success can go to your head. Maintaining humility requires you to surround yourself with people who keep you honest, who tell you the truth you may not want to hear but need to hear, and who hold you accountable if you don’t listen to them.

I think that’s what happened to Steve Jobs at Apple. He had the grand ambition to build a great company. But after the launch of the Mac was a flop in 1985, he refused to listen to his critics about what needed to change, and he was forced out of his own company.

I’ve heard from his close collaborators that the Steve Jobs who came back to Apple in 1997 was more humble. Reflecting on the revitalization of the company, he once said, “I’m pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn’t been fired from Apple. It was awful-tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it.”

That’s what a humble narcissist sounds like:. “I believe I can do extraordinary things, but I always have something to learn.”

So if you work with a narcissist, don’t try to lower their confidence. Just temper it with humility. Don’t tell them they’re not great. Instead, remind them that they’re human, they haven’t succeeded alone, and what sets the best apart is that they’re always striving to get better.

Find out more about humility by listening to WorkLife with AdamGrant, a new TED podcast. Episode 3 explores whether humility is a hidden ingredient in success, and it features author Michael Lewis, a “no-stats all-star,” and the great coach of an unusually humble college basketball team that keeps beating the odds.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: On Moderation

Postby Mowk » Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:01 pm

I agree with you Mags, humility is a rare human trait. It would not be an example of humility to do anything for it's sake. It's more about what isn't done with it, then what you do with however much of it you have. There are those charitable in spirit that ask nothing in return, they are as a result of their own humility the unknown contributor. They are fantastic leaders but you'll never find them in a leadership class. You won't find them at the top of a corporate ladder, they are the ones holding the ladder for others to climb. If you are looking to business for examples of humility they aren't found there. If you're looking for authors of books they aren't found there. If you are looking for it in positions of power it won't be found there either.

Were you can find it is on the streets and alleys and back ways in simple gestures. Humility is rarely a grand gesture, if it makes the news it's not humble. It is the simplest of acts. No, you first. It's holding a door for another to walk through and then walking through the door they hold for you with a wink and a nod.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: On Moderation

Postby MagsJ » Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:51 pm

Exuberant Teleportation wrote:..invoking wrath against evil doers seems just so alien and weird.

..don’t worry, it’s weird to me too.

I've always been interested in distributing ideas, but never laws.

..and I’m interested in turning ideas into laws (that aid not hinder).. I do this in real life.

When it comes to philosophy, the pen is always free. That's something that we can all relate to, Moderators, and just regular customers.

Sure..

I'm not really sure that I understand the nature of abuse. Moderators come in to set up walls and restrictions, but what about bridges? Perhaps disputes between Moderators and common folk build too many walls, and not enough bridges.

..bridges can be burned.

And then, if we look at people like Iambiguous, he/she is an "ILovePhilosophy Legend"! He's been rewarded for giving people like me his/her opinion on everything!

Man, if there's a guy/girl curious about a thousand different things, it's him/her.

..and yet many here don’t like him for it, and berate.

But MagsJ seems to give service with a smile on - she's your happy meal toy of the day!

Hahaha, that's cute ;)
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18745
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: On Moderation

Postby Silhouette » Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:59 pm

MagsJ wrote:I still think the use of the word humility as a descriptor for those leadership traits is not the ideal word to use, as having utilised those methodologies throughout my life, describing them as humility is not the first word that springs to my mind.. hence the disagreement here.

Wait, you're still arguing this?

You freely provide the research against you yourself both here:

Lawrence: Neohumility and Business Leadership: Do They Belong Together? wrote:This article suggests a new view of humility, "neohumility," humility without weakness and transformed to fit the business world. It operationalizes the definition of neohumility and includes characteristics such as self-awareness, valuing others' opinions, willingness to learn and change, sharing power, having the ability to hear the truth and admit mistakes, and working to create a culture of openness where dissent is encouraged in an environment of mutuaL trust and respect.

and here:

Why Humble Leaders Make The Best Leaders wrote:1. When hiring for a leadership role, you may be overlooking one of the most important traits of top performers: humility.
2. A number of research studies have concluded that humble leaders listen more effectively, inspire great teamwork and focus everyone (including themselves) on organizational goals better than leaders who don’t score high on humility.
3. humility in CEOs led to higher-performing leadership teams, increased collaboration and cooperation and flexibility in developing strategies.
4. At a managerial level, traits associated with humility–such as soliciting feedback and focusing employee needs–generated higher levels of engagement and job performance from their direct reports
5. When things go wrong, humble leaders admit to their mistakes and take responsibility. When things go right, they shine the spotlight on others.
6. Humility is most closely associated with a cluster of highly positive qualities including sincerity, modesty, fairness, truthfulness, unpretentiousness and authenticity.
And there’s nothing about humility that makes it incompatible with strength and courage.
Quite the opposite.
7. My advice: dig deeper. Your gut reaction is often wrong.
Search for quiet confidence, humility and a focus on others.

and I provide the logic against you here:

Silhouette wrote:My argument:
let:
A = people with strength and competence
B = people who prefer to show humility
C = the set of those preferable for positions in power

P1: ∀A ≡ ∀B
P2: ∃(∀A∈C)
∴ ∃(∀B∈C)
i.e. all people who prefer to show humility are preferable for positions of power.

And your response is that there are examples of those failing in positions of authority lacking humility, and you cite some personal anecdotes about your own experience, which is the whole thing that's just been unequivocally proven to be based on flawed practice? To both of these: this is the whole point #-o

Like Mowk, I agree that we frequently find those "at the top" lacking the quality of humility to the detriment of all and being show up for it - as the evidence you provided and the logic I provided would suggest they would, and as you did on this forum.
And what is this interview nonsense? How does one reply to the question "are you humble?" or "tell me about some times you have exhibited humility in your previous roles?" without contradicting said humility?! Humility is not something you boast or sell by definition - it's not an attribute that lends itself to explicit discussion. You demonstrate it implicitly and the competent interviewer will pick up on it. The fact that you don't appear to be looking for it is testament only to your own incompetence in accordance with everything we've both just proven, which begs the question how you got into a position to interview others at all.

But that's the thing - people who aren't humble are the very ones who seek authority the most: hence so many examples of those who aren't humble failing in authority. The weak work hardest to trick others into appearing strong, many fool their way up only to do a worse job than actually good leaders who are humble, and we see the pretentious fail all the time while the humble succeed and make everything better with no such spotlight on them - as is consistent with their humility.

We have all these papers you're providing, the logic, as well as the anecdotes of yourself, Mowk and me too about those without humility fail in positions of power - and you're trying to argue that it's not the ideal word to use and it's just a buzzword? Everything everyone's saying points to it being highly significant, if not ideal.

This debate has just been opened and closed on all accounts at the hands of everyone here, even yourself. How is this so hard for you?

Mowk wrote:They are fantastic leaders but you'll never find them in a leadership class. You won't find them at the top of a corporate ladder, they are the ones holding the ladder for others to climb. If you are looking to business for examples of humility they aren't found there. If you're looking for authors of books they aren't found there. If you are looking for it in positions of power it won't be found there either.

Were you can find it is on the streets and alleys and back ways in simple gestures. Humility is rarely a grand gesture, if it makes the news it's not humble. It is the simplest of acts. No, you first. It's holding a door for another to walk through and then walking through the door they hold for you with a wink and a nod.

Yes Mowk, and this is because leadership IS the holding of the ladder for others to climb, or the door for another to walk through. You find the best leaders being humble right there, just as you find the best moderators of a forum right there.

At the "top of the corporate ladder" you sometimes find these actual leaders, but rarely - such is the flaw of so many institutions. But just because the pretentious need to take the credit for the humility of the best leaders, due to their own weakness and lack of humility, does that mean it's them we should emulate? Does their limelight make them the best leaders? They can claim the title of leader all they like, and they will only continue to be the ones adding to all these examples of those in authority failing like MagsJ did.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: On Moderation

Postby Meno_ » Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:12 pm

Logic and opinion are the two premier modes of arguing for a stance on any position taken on almost anything.

What are the bridges which these turn on ? Usually emotional transformers , that are usually confirmed inversely, the projections if not verified after the fact, are usually accounted for by revised variables which fail originally to be modified by others coming in and fail to adhere to new specifications.

It is the tit for that of petty organization men, who end up paying the price.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: On Moderation

Postby Mowk » Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:54 pm

I don't think Carleas was looking for nominations, but perhaps you could send him a PM and volunteer.

On Moderation, and what makes a good moderator.

Objectivity, a clear understanding of the rules under which you moderate. The ability to take responsibility for your mistakes in the role and learn from them. And to practice the rules yourself.

A failure in each of these regards and a decision gets made. Carleas made the right decision.

I think you get the small portion of humility with which I was addressing. Like I said humility is a rare human trait. I admit you've got a lot to contribute. great thinkers and humility may go together but one does not necessarily stem from the other. Humility doesn't appear to be a requirement for anything. It's more about a grace in what you do and how you do it. So in part, you bring a lot to light.

Back to "On Moderation", I think the tenor of the discussion was getting a bit off base, perhaps even never quite got on base. It's not a pick on Mags thread, but that is what it seems you have turned it into, or by your involvement, let it get turned into with your desire to make your points. Water under the bridge. Lets talk about the bridge _Meno eludes to.

Flat out attacking a person, not quite in line with what Carleas suggested he was aiming for in many of his own examples of moderation.
Last edited by Mowk on Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: On Moderation

Postby Silhouette » Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:25 pm

Mowk wrote:I don't think Carleas was looking for nominations, but perhaps you could send him a PM and volunteer.

Unfortunately I'm not particularly interested in moderation.

My ego is big enough without the status, don't you think? :wink: Additionally, I don't like the idea of mixing business and pleasure, because I find the former detracts from the latter - and the latter is why I'm here.

Carleas opened this thread with words including "I open this thread for any thoughts on this decision, or on moderation generally." - so it suffices for me to be able to leave my thoughts here and leave it at that. I can't force people such as MagsJ to admit their clear truth when her ego obstructs her, but that won't stop me trying.

I think humility is something I have to continually work on, I don't think it is something that comes naturally to me but I'm fine with that - things you have to work on force your conscious concentration, and that can make you even better at them than if you don't have to think about them. Being better at humility :-k The cracks in my methodology appear 8-[ To add to these cracks, I know I have a good head on my shoulders and I enjoy showing it off - which yes, detracts from my grace. I can switch that up, but for my current peon status I find little motivation. It's fun to exert a little savagery.

I've had one managerial role professionally, and my team of one entire single person(!) told me I was the best manager they ever had, but I didn't enjoy the cognitive dissonance of being a mouthpiece for a business whose methods I didn't always agree with - I felt like a bad actor. So I quit and changed my career path. I only enjoy leading people using any degree of criticism (or praise) if I fully support the cause (in both means and ends). Authenticity is something I place in very high regard. As such, whenever I lead it's out of the limelight in an unofficial capacity, holding up the ladders and opening the doors so to speak - for better or worse. I try for better.

edit: having written all this, I hope it was me who you were addressing - otherwise that would be embarrassing :-"
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: On Moderation

Postby Mowk » Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:39 pm

Well then, if humility isn't your strong suit, you seem to example some integrity. That's fairly high up on my list of important human traits as well. I hope you take that as the compliment with which it was intended.

"I open this thread for any thoughts on this decision, or on moderation generally."

In answer to the first question, now that you mention it, yeah, but I've learned to respect your thinking regardless.

I'd have to interpret that wording quite a bit looser, in order to fit many, but certainly not all of your contributions within its confines. But, I guess the responsibility for that falls on me. I struggle a lot wondering if I have any thing valid to contribute. Guess I sort of consider it a fault in my own character, while searching for any reason to consider it not so faulty, as faults go, not such a bad one to have.

If you'll pardon the thinking, I got a bit of feeling, you were picking on a person and not just an idea. You seem level enough to at least pause in consideration of an other's feelings on a matter. And after consideration go from there. To add to the list of requirements of moderation. A person that allows them self room for a second guess before committing so entirely on the first. Perhaps it might minimize the mistakes they'll be required to learn from.

"I can't force people >nameblanked<"...., this is true, you can lead a horse... Or you can show them a mirror...

Or you can flat call out a person and not an idea. Member now, any mistakes made is old news. Can we see how great a member? I'm leaving some room.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: On Moderation

Postby Mowk » Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:24 am

Hey, don't get me wrong, I have "sinned" in this regard, my hope is I am learning from my mistakes. Guessing better?

Draw and quarter me. I may consider the criticism, I make no promises other then trying. You'll have to take my word on it, it is all I have to offer.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: On Moderation

Postby MagsJ » Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:08 am

Over the years, some develop their own working style, that works for them, so incorporating the right amount of this and that, to make a tailored managerial style specifically for them, so a concoction of sorts.. if you will.

When being bullied in the workplace, exercising humility ain’t going to stop that bullying - you do not seem to be grounded in reality, as simple moral issues and dilemmas don’t seem apparent to you, and you even outright dismissed them.. in your haste to continue whatever your agenda here is with me.

This wasn’t my day job Silhouette, but a pastime, and pastimes don’t include having to endure negativity and cray cray.. dealing with such behaviour became tiresome, and I told people about themselves.

The end.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18745
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: On Moderation

Postby Silhouette » Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:24 pm

Mowk wrote:Hey, don't get me wrong, I have "sinned" in this regard, my hope is I am learning from my mistakes. Guessing better?

Draw and quarter me. I may consider the criticism, I make no promises other then trying. You'll have to take my word on it, it is all I have to offer.

In case your second reply is a result of concern about my lack of reply, I'm only giving the thread time to breathe to allow MagsJ to respond to her categorical defeat.

edit: Before submitting this post, there were developments since I started writing it so I'll leave the following provisionally tabbed out while I address the developments at the end of this post - as what I've tabbed out may no longer fully apply after all and so should be ignored for now in favour of skipping to the end of this post for MagsJ. There's stuff for Mowk in between, mind.

That would be the honourable thing for her to do, so I do not expect her to do so - as honour in defeat requires humility, and even in the face of incontrovertible evidence and logic from all sides and by all involved she's yet to show any sign of learning from incontrovertible evidence and logic.
That is not to say she won't come around, which is what I hope for even if I do not expect it. The act of doing so will be the same as learning, but this does not rule out the possibility of her replying further to continue to dig her own grave - the same cowardice that we saw in her last response to me.

This leaves at least 3 possible paths for her that deeply define who she is as a person:
1) to admit being wrong and learn from incontrovertible evidence and logic: showing integrity, honour, honesty, humility, and a lack of cowardice.
2) to cease replying: showing deception through her slinking off - as well as cowardice, and a lack of integrity, honour, honesty and humility.
3) to continue replying in denial of the truth: showing a severe lack of intelligence or at least pathological emotional issues expressed through stubborn denial, as well as cowardice, and a lack of integrity, honour, honesty and humility.

Mowk, you haven't said anything wrong or inoffensive, don't worry. I think any "drawing and quartering" has likely come to an end.
Yes, integrity is easier for me than humility, though note what I said about things that "you have to work on force your conscious concentration, and that can make you even better at them than if you don't have to think about them." - I do take what you said as the compliment that you intended.
I can't deny that I am applying all the theory of moderation in practice to one particular person: in line with the thread being about one person as well as the generalities that can be gleaned from their bad example. I've even admitted a little savagery in my directness and lack of holding back within reason. Whilst "you can lead a horse/you can show them a mirror/etc.", firm, overly assertive insistence can bring a certain urgency to a deeply important issue that can otherwise be ignored with potentially indefinite procrastination. There have been protestations from, e.g. phyllo, about my approach suggesting something simplistically sinister, which is undeniably a common thing to encounter on the internet, but I think there are interesting truths about teaching and even parenting psychology where approaches like mine are effective under particular circumstances - even to the point that bystanders who are usually not parents or teachers themselves might doubt the competence of the methods being used. I'm fine with how I've approached things, and while I suspect much of it has been me "winging it" and understanding it myself more in hindsight than foresight, I've not felt wrong in either foresight nor hindsight - coming from someone who, in your words, exemplifies integrity.

In case anyone was wondering, I'd improve the P2 in my syllogism to something like (A∈C)∧((¬A)∉C) therefore re-writing the conclusion as (B∈C)∧((¬B)∉C) - just to be clearer about what the ∃ was supposed to be doing when technically it wasn't adding anything to the logic. The conclusion remains that same: all people who prefer to show humility (and none who avoid it) are preferable for positions of power.

Mowk wrote:I struggle a lot wondering if I have any thing valid to contribute. Guess I sort of consider it a fault in my own character, while searching for any reason to consider it not so faulty, as faults go, not such a bad one to have.

I don't think that's a character fault at all, never mind being a good or bad fault.
The fact that you wonder whether you have anything valid to contribute shows in itself that you are thinking about valid things to contribute.
I'm reminded of the Ben Folds Five song "Jane", though the lyrics are little more exaggerated than what you're saying about yourself: "You worry there might not be anything at all inside. That you worry should tell you that's not right".

There's no imperative for you to come up with something valid at any given point - it would be worse to try and force it and contributing invalidity. Saying that, however, the act of attempting to write a response can help transform the invalid into the valid because writing forces you to straighten out your thinking - you don't have to post it. It's something I do from time to time, before deleting what I've written and considering what I realised as a result of trying to formulate my thoughts into an argument. My account is older than pretty much everyone else who still contributes to this forum, and I've a markedly low post count to show for it - because I only post when I've something valid to contribute, that I'm able to fully form (that and a couple of periods of lengthy hiatus ;) ). I like to think that this increases the density of quality in my contributions. Silence is always valid when it's contemplation, so in that sense, your struggle wondering if you have anything valid to contribute is a positive sign. You can contribute validity whenever it's time, and think about what makes the invalid valid in between.

MagsJ wrote:Over the years, some develop their own working style, that works for them, so incorporating the right amount of this and that, to make a tailored managerial style specifically for them, so a concoction of sorts.. if you will.

No doubt. And you develop that working style in line with your experiences, and what works for you can likewise evolve you as a person.
I can't change the latter, but apparently I'm part of the former even if not in a professional capacity - which you can only take however you will in line with your ongoing evolution as a person.

MagsJ wrote:When being bullied in the workplace, exercising humility ain’t going to stop that bullying - you do not seem to be grounded in reality, as simple moral issues and dilemmas don’t seem apparent to you, and you even outright dismissed them.. in your haste to continue whatever your agenda here is with me.

I think I see what this is about. I am not in favour of bullying and do not intend to bully.

You will recall that:
"I fully accept that too much humility can be counterproductive as the programme you watched rightly pointed out. It can be abused by others, it can be used as a mask for self-loathing and perhaps bottle up passive aggression - like all things it's not an absolute good, I'm sure you can agree with me here? Perhaps this is in part why you're so averse to it? My point of course is that when done rightly, it's indispensible to the best leadership and authority, and when ignored will lead to poor leadership, being ineffectual and unfit for authority as we have recently witnessed."

Would you say "exercising humility ain't going to stop that bullying" if you replaced your use of the word "humility" with that "neohumility", which Pareena Lawrence defined as "a new view of humility, neohumility, humility without weakness and transformed to fit the business world." in the journal you helpfully provided in an earlier post of yours?
Might exercising "humility without weakness and transformed to fit the business world" stop that bullying?

Given what we've both provided so far about the incontrovertible value of humility - your papers and my logic - throwing humility out altogether and projecting a lack of need for such things may appear to be an effective or at least reflexive counter against the example you gave of being bullied in the workplace, but in doing so you also throw out the incontrovertible value of what we might as well now refer to as neohumility.
The reflexive counter of throwing the baby out with the bathwater may be an understandable initial resort, but this does not necessitate that the baby remains thrown out with the water. A re-introduction of neohumility could very well be the next evolution of such a person in light of its incontrovertibly proven value as follows:

As Carleas and I were saying, there exists costly signalling and "anything that's costly is honest". If anything, a bully is attracted to someone who is suspected to be hiding a fear of e.g. showing humility, but someone who projects humility without fear of hiding it is no target for bullying. Ironically workplace bullying can worsen from any initial acts of self-protection that merely "cover up and deny", but it cannot happen to someone who is projecting a costly form of signalling without fear - as the costly is honest. This is why those who flaunt luxury are not taken to be unable to become rich even if they made themselves poor through the sacrifice! The most convincing points are made with full disclosure of their potential weaknesses - because their strength can withstand even their own critique placed right beside them, and it reminds everyone else that every counterpoint must likewise acknowledge its weaknesses too if it is to stand up honestly in opposition.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

PreviousNext

Return to Meta



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users