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.
- 52 Replies
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.
Not at all..I'm using neither love or fear. I'm using my knowledge of psychology
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.
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.
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.
do we all have to believe that Duncan was a fool because pang says so
No..literary devices shows that Shakespeare meant him to be foolish (the fact that he claims to hold loyalty very highly..then has 2 betrayers as his Thane)
Macbeth was a monster. He ruled with fear.
His rule was more of fear in a different sense..he had an enormous amount of fear for the rest of the witches prophecy (Banquo's heritage being kings) and was constantly feeling guilty over his actions towards Duncan.
Is pang's knowledge of psychology the only knowledge of psychology? Is he the fount of all wisdom on matters psychological.
No..nor do I claim to be so. But I fancy myself a pretty reliable source..saying as how I study war strategy..and war strategy is based heavily off of psychology..and as we just discussed, random-variable rewards work.
As for love and fear, let me quote Sun Tzu's Art of War on this (yes, I have it by my side) - Therefore soldiers must be treated in the first instance with humanity, but kept under control by means of iron discipline
So, treat them with humanity (love, in the instance) but remember to keep discipline (or "tough love" as some would call)
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.
It isn't randomly paying them..paying them isn't a reward..it is compensation (Something, such as money, given or received as payment or reparation, as for a service). You give them a random reward..like, for example, a pizza party.
Well. pang, I agree that it is good to give the workers a treat 'randomly', as long as they get the basic reward of a regular wage for regular work.
I'm a lover not a fighter, so we may disagree on some things. I'd like to make you redundant in your job as a war strategist. I am a peacemaker and I think that psychology can be useful in stopping wars happening in the first place. We've seen how bad the world has been in the past few years with the conflicts in the Middle East. I think that US policy in the Middle East requires more than just making the belligerents afraid of the US technological advantage. I think that it did not work in Vietnam, where the US was far better armed and stil lost, and it did not work for the British in the War of Independence. I think that the establishment of democracy over there is 'love'. I decide to stop this diatribe now to rest.
I would rule with both. You don't want to be considered weak, otherwise corrupt insurgents will win, but you also don't want to be cruel and stupid. I would definitely be happy to reward my people with celebrations, treats and the like if they had been doing a good job (Communism fails with big groups of humans) but if I got heavy whiffs of trouble, I would stamp it out quick-like.
You must be logged in to post a reply!