This is the raw truth of the conservative psyche, right here. The core of it all.

One core conviction of reactionaries is that everyone is selfish, everyone is out for themselves, their family, their tribe, that *no one* acts in a pro-social or moral or responsible manner except under threat.
That's what God & religion are to them -- permanent threat of punishment, the only thing that could possibly induce large numbers of people to behave. Without that threat, everyone will just revert to brutal, callous selfishness, right?
Important to note that this is pure projection. Empirical research is clear that when it comes to training -- training pets, training kids, training employees -- *positive reinforcement* is overwhelmingly more effective than punishment or threat of punishment.
People behave well & perform well when they are empowered, when they feel valued, when they have a sense of agency & efficacy, NOT when they are cowed & beaten like starved dogs. Reactionaries can't accept this -- they quite literally can't imagine or envision it.
In reactionary world, there are only hierarchies, only dominance & submission, & the only way to get what you want is to be dominant, which means imposing pain & humiliation on those below you until they comply.
This is why the world is full of shitty bosses - people are socialized into this twisted worldview & come to think only "being feared" can make them effective. But talk to anyone who's worked for a successful org & you'll hear about bosses who listen to, see, & empower employees.
To get back to a thread I wrote the other day, it's not "realism" to say "people will be lazy unless they are forced to work by the threat of starvation." It's pure projection from emotionally stunted people who themselves wouldn't raise a finger for anyone else unless forced.

More from All

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.