/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18788872]

>F. One of the most serious mistakes that people make in thinking about the development of societies is to assume that human beings make collective decisions of their own free will and can impose those decisions on their society, as ifhuman volition were something existing outside of the organizational structures of society and capable of acting independently of those structures. In reality, human volition is to a very significant extent a product of the organizational structures of society, for one of the most important factors that determine the success of an organization is its capacity for people-management; that is, its ability to induce people to think and act in ways that serve the needs of the organization. Some techniques of people-management may be described as "external," meaning that they are used to influence the thought and behavior of people who are not members of the organization that applies the techniques.
>Some techniques of people-management may be described as "external," meaning that they are used to influence the thought and behavior of people who are not members of the organization that applies the techniques.
>External techniques include, among others, those of propaganda and public relations. Propaganda and public relations techniques can also be applied internally, to manage the behavior of the members of the organization that applies the techniques; and other techniques are designed specifically for internal use. Business schools give courses in a subject called "Organizational Behavior," which is, in part, the study of techniques through which an organization can manage the behavior of its own members.46 Also important are techniques for selecting individuals who are suited to become members of a given organization.

[Anonymous No.18788879]

>But we maintain that the people-managing capability of organizations is not limited to techniques, that is, to methods understood and consciously applied by human beings. We argue that through natural selection organizations evolve mechanisms not recognized or understood by human beings that tend to induce people to act in ways that serve the needs of the organization. This ties in with what we argued in Part E of this Appendix, about the operation of natural selection among business enterprises.
>Of course, all these conscious and unconscious mechanisms put together are very far from achieving complete control over human behavior. The mechanisms are effective only in a statistical sense: They tend on average to make people think and act in ways that serve the organizations that possess the mechanisms, but different individuals are influenced in different degrees, and there are always exceptional individuals whose thought and behavior are radically at odds with those that would serve the needs of the organizations in question. Nevertheless, organizations' capabilities for people-management, whether they are consciously applied techniques or subtly evolved mechanisms unrecognized by humans, are highly important, and people who make naive statements like, "We [meaning society at large] can choose to stop damaging our environment" -as if the human race had some sort of collective free will-are out of touch with practical reality.

[Anonymous No.18788899]

I don't see anything wrong, controversial, or particularly enlightening with this, OP. What kind of responses were you hoping to get? You do know pretty much everybody and their mothers here are at least somewhat familiar with Teddy and his work, right?

[Anonymous No.18789068]

>>18788899
>I don't see anything wrong, controversial, or particularly enlightening with this, OP
From a different perspective it means that the majority of humans are basically NPCs, even those who think they aren't. By and large, simplified statements such as this tend to cause shitstorm whenever you mention them anywhere in the public domain.

[Anonymous No.18789277]

>>18789068
What if you submit to such a system but with an ironic distance? I work at an organization who obviously employs all these techniques for a wide variety of reasons, but I do not submit to their message, I do not believe in it, in fact laugh at it as to cope with the pathetic existence of my daily slave wagery, so do most of my close colleagues. We simply play along the script when the instructor is in the vicinity we act accordingly. What do you call such phenomenon? Its a matter of survival, anon. Nobody actually believes in any of this PR, strategic communications, Human Resources bullshit in an organizational setting except the women who are tasked to produce it. Even their superiors know its all bullshit.

So why do we do it? Why cant we just call a spade a spade, a need for money to pay for necessities instead of being passionate about "serving the customer". No one is, its all pretense. So why cant normies just fucking admit it? Do CEOs and their henchmen really think people are so stupid to believe in any of this bullshit? Like NPCs need to associate some deeper meaning or shared goal with their vapid daily acitivities. Why cant we go beyond it and just say it: its all pointless drivel made to make you feel good about being a wage slave that make's a few white men or kikes rich while you slave away for pennies on the dollar and if we were to remove the facade of friendliness we would no longer appeal to the most docile and subservient slaves

[Anonymous No.18789822]

>>18789277
The statement in the OP is in relation to whether societies can be subject to direct human (rational) control. By 'organization' Ted means any organization of all sorts and sizes--from the smallest ones, as the family unit for example, to the ones of the biggest and broadest scope such as a society and entire civilization. Obviously the degree and likelihood to which such an organization can be willfully changed from the inside depends on the number of its members, its type and its size. That is, the more members there are of a given organization who haven't adapted to or fully embraced the said organization's imposed values and principles, the better the chance is to radically change it from within, especially if that organization isn't that big. However, it is important to note that, just as Ted said, that there are other forces at present that also serve to readjust an individual to an organizational structure, something like a natural mechanism that isn't understood by its members and how it exactly work.
The whole point is that it is almost impossible, if not entirely, for humans to dictate the course and development of their society (at least in the long run) due to the aforementioned reasons. That's why unconventional, radical and drastic actions need to be taken in order to have a long-lasting effect, and they need to be done smart and only by a dedicated group of revolutionaries.