Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Better to rule with love or fear?

Posted Dec 24, '12 at 2:46am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,715 posts

I read that pang would reward his workers randomly when they did satisfactory work in order to get what he wanted out of them. I assert that putting workers on any reward program which had little respect [love] for them as human beings would hve little success. If the boss wants the staff to work for mainly his satisfaction and to forgo their own satisfaction, I and a number of other people would want to tell her where to stick her job.

Who said I am having little respect for them? I am rewarding them for their hard work..just randomly. It's the same as receiving a bonus, or a pizza party at work.

Every boss wants his satisfaction of their productivity to be met...you want your workers to be productive yes? And you are keeping them satisfied as well...let me show you some scientific examples from an experiment..

During the experiments different color visuals would come up, and a reward (drop of syrup) was associated to a particular visual. During the study the scientists preformed three different types of such experiments. In one experiment the monkey would receive the reward every time the monitor showed reward visual. In the second experiment the monkey would not receive any rewards whether or not the monitor showed the reward visual. In the final experiment the monkey was given reward randomly 50% of the time the monitor presented the reward stimulus (2).

The results showed that in the first experiment dopamine levels rose only the first few times the stimulus showed and a reward was given. After the first few times, the monkey became used to the reward. It expected the reward, and the reward was always given. Therefore, the stimulus would no longer have an effect on dopamine levels (2). The second experiment also showed a similar fluctuation in dopamine levels. At first, the monkey would expect to be given a reward after the monitor presented the reward stimulus. However, after the monkey was not given a reward, and continued to not be given a reward, the dopamine levels were no longer effected (2). The final experiment produced some very interesting results. Because the monkey would be rewarded randomly, the dopamine levels rose every time the monitor displayed the reward stimulus. If the monkey received a reward the monkey's dopamine levels would show a strong outburst. However, even before the monkey received the reward, dopamine levels rose in the monkey's brain. The underlying effect of this experiment was a constant increase in dopamine levels (2).

Source

The random awards essentially keeps anticipation for a possibility. If you work well and continuously get rewarded on it..then, eventually, you simply get used to it. This causes you to not strive as much to achieve the reward, causing work productivity to either stop raising and even out..or to begin dropping. No reward, obviously, has poor effects...their is no desire to work hard as you will always get the same negative outcome. Random rewards, however, creates excellent productivity. As the site states

Also...it is quite hard to debate against something that has been psychologically proving..I should warn you.

 

Posted Dec 24, '12 at 10:50am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

I assert that putting workers on any reward program which had little respect [love] for them as human beings would hve little success.

a reward program is not mend to love. it does however show respect for the extra work these workers do for you.
as boss you can ask them to do the extra work against normal payment. but instead you give them a extra reward for their extra work.

is that really so bad? it's very successful anyway.

 

Posted Dec 25, '12 at 3:11pm

handlerfan

handlerfan

192 posts

I am a graduate psychologist. I can assess whether I think an hypothesis has been proven or whether more research would be useful. I would require time to look at the research, I could examine whether the research into monkey behaviour is applicable to homo sapiens.
We are a different kind of primate to chimps, or whatever monkey they used.
I am only interested in this subject for fun. I consider academic research is about getting at scientific truth rather than proving who's right of who's wrong; And it is hard work.

As 4040 said we are debating whether it is better to rule with love or fear.

I might check out 'The Prince' again to see what Mackie did write'

 

Posted Dec 26, '12 at 1:28am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,715 posts

I am a graduate psychologist.

and yet you deny the power of positive reinforcement through random-variable...

 

Posted Dec 27, '12 at 2:40pm

handlerfan

handlerfan

192 posts

pang
I'm a bit rusty on what you said. I remeber that I received a high mark for an essay on Punishment, I could research what you said. I am receiving little reward, regular or otherwise for doing such work. I have receive little reward for studying psychology for many years. I think that you are trying to rule me with fear.
Winning?

 

Posted Dec 27, '12 at 8:29pm

Mars_1

Mars_1

5 posts

The Machiavellian theory does not propose fear to be superior to love but rather that one should more cruel than kind.  If one exhibits only kindness, how will one rule a country, state, etc. of strong minded people.  Take Shakespeare's Macbeth, the ruler, King Duncan was a kind and trusting ruler.  However this meekness led to two revolts and his death.  However, Macbeth's cruel and skeptical demeanor resulted in his ultimate demise.  The ruler that Scotland needed was Duncan's son, Malcolm.  Malcolm was a combination of Duncan's kindness and Macbeth's cruelty.  As a result, Malcolm led the Scottish people to many prosperous years.  In regards to Machiavelli's idea it is better to be a good combination of the two, cruel and loving.

 

Posted Dec 28, '12 at 1:34am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,715 posts

Take Shakespeare's Macbeth, the ruler, King Duncan was a kind and trusting ruler.

Duncan was also a fool and could have no idea of the witchcraft at hand

I think that you are trying to rule me with fear.
Winning?

Not at all..I'm using neither love or fear. I'm using my knowledge of psychology

 

Posted Dec 28, '12 at 5:25pm

handlerfan

handlerfan

192 posts

I'll use my knowledge of psychotherapy to tell pang that I will decide how I regard his behaviour and what I think about his behaviour.
For example, do we all have to believe that Duncan was a fool because pang says so. I assert that Macbeth was a monster. He ruled with fear. Look what happened ti him. MacDuff got him.
Is pang's knowledge of psychology the only knowledge of psychology? Is he the fount of all wisdom on matters psychological. He may be right about the random reinforcement thing. Me-I like to get paid regularly and so do the people I receive goods and services. Randomly reinforcing the refuse disposal operatives won't make them work better.

 

Posted Dec 28, '12 at 5:45pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,086 posts

Knight

I just read recently that a Japanese researcher team from the "National Institute for Physiological Sciences" found out that in groups of people (humans, not monkeys or apes), those that got compliments for practical tasks done made the best results in the second test, compared to those who had to evaluate themselves. So they evidenced that praise is a good motivator. Now praise does not exclude a certain pressure, I personally think it would even be a mistake to praise people without motivating them to improve more.

Also, praise for the productive can also motivate the non-productive as well, even if those are subject to fear of failure. So I would personally say that the 'best' (most productive) rule is one of respect, positive motivation and pressure.
Or as Mars_1 said,

a good combination of the two, cruel and loving.

 

Posted Dec 28, '12 at 7:34pm

handlerfan

handlerfan

192 posts

I am going to be a bit radical here. I think maybe effective love involves a element of fear. Maybe a kid who has received love all their life in the form of being given a lot of presents and being allowed to do whatever she wants grows up as a worse member of society than a kid who is disciplined by their parents and learns to fear them when they tell the kid that no there are limits to what mummy and daddy will let the child do.
The family is a microcosm of society. The child learns how to be a member of society in the family first. [I appreciate that some of us are brought up by caregivers rather absent parents.]
Better to rule with love or fear a family. I think a parents toughness is best softened with some tenderness. As in 'I'm doing this for your own good" or "This is hurting me more than it is hurting you" when chatising a child.

 
Reply to Better to rule with love or fear?

You must be logged in to post a reply!