ForumsWEPRBetter to rule with love or fear?

52 7338
Cambyses
offline
Cambyses
134 posts
Farmer

Machiavellian question.

On human nature: "Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you."

I personally believe it's better to rule with love, since it gives a reason for the people to be a part of a nation or community. Love, while not an absolute thing, can inspire much more fierce loyalty and confidence in the ruler.

Thoughts?

  • 52 Replies
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,611 posts
Regent

I believe in not living beyond your means. Something the US should learn.


Guess which party refuses to cut military spending?
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

But if I were to rule I would keep my nose out of other countries'

your republic lover romney. wanted to stick his nose deeper and in more countries.

I believe in not living beyond your means. Something the US should learn.

the 1s thing that made sens. good job.
404011xz
offline
404011xz
215 posts
Blacksmith

You've got issues. I wasn't even wishing for Romney. I wanted Ron Paul. Romney is who they chose though so I had to push him a little. To keep this on topic: another great thing about rulling with love is that not as many people want to kill you so you don't have to try and disarm your people so they won't have guns to fight back with.

handlerfan
offline
handlerfan
194 posts
Peasant

pang

respect

We are human beings not lab rats.I'd rather be the judge if whether my work was satisfactory or not. I'd like to have a small farm tucked away somewhere far from all the problems of say, a city like Baltimore [the Wire]. I'd have different problems far away from the crowds.

I would work to provide for my own needs with the means of production I have in my own hands and rely on goverment as little as possible. I want as little responsibility for ruling others as possible because I want as little blame as possible when things get tough. I'd get my satisfaction from my own work.

I think that we ain't all born to be the masters.

404011xz
offline
404011xz
215 posts
Blacksmith

You do realize this thread is about which way is better to rule right? But I do have to agree with you on living far away from the city, absolletly can't stand the city. I think it's way to crowded.
On topic, on topic, Hmmm, another thing about love, you can travel with regular citizens without worrying about getting killed, this way you won't have to waste money on flying on some giant expensive airplane, you can just pay regular flight fees like everybody else.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

Hmmm, another thing about love, you can travel with regular citizens without worrying about getting killed,

No matter how much love you spread, you'll always have enemies.
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,611 posts
Regent

The democratic system has largely curtailed the possibilities of government policies; they have became much less personal, and seem more bureaucratic, so I don't think it's a supremely valid question.

handlerfan
offline
handlerfan
194 posts
Peasant

4040
I reply to a post pang made earlier on in this thread about a strategy to get other people to work. 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.

I think that Mackiavelli also said it is best that a prince appears to be generous rather than mean. I think that generosity is one of the qualities of a loving person.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

I think that Mackiavelli also said it is best that a prince appears to be generous rather than mean.

I'm not finding that one. Quite the opposite:

"Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil."
"It is much more secure to be feared than to be loved."
"Men shrink less from offending one who inspires love than one who inspires fear."
"Of all the things he must guard against, hatred and contempt come first, and liberality leads to both."
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,991 posts
Scribe

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.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

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.
handlerfan
offline
handlerfan
194 posts
Peasant

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'

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,991 posts
Scribe

I am a graduate psychologist.


and yet you deny the power of positive reinforcement through random-variable...
handlerfan
offline
handlerfan
194 posts
Peasant

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?

Mars_1
offline
Mars_1
5 posts
Peasant

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.

Showing 31-45 of 52