What I am continuously facing are those persons who really do not want that this transparency ever happens. They want to hold relevant organizational information only themselves and only want to decide themselves whom they share it with.
They want to be in and own that power over information, even over the most ridiculous and unspectacular data, and to pass it on to only those persons they want to bind in as peers; such, they gain thankfulness by those whom they pull into their boat, an outstanding role in the group (Maslow 4 it was ... remember? Esteem needs: self-esteem (speak: ego), achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, managerial responsibility (speak: power over others) and additionally some kind of assumed inalienability. In fact, it definitely 'functions' in reality as it is here.
They themselves and those who fall for those little tricks I guess mostly don't realize that, if you look at it in another way, that this behaviour only shows that people who act that way just prove that they lack exactly those and a lot of other qualities which would make them in such a role a contributive part for society. Accountability, for instance. Accountability anyway is some kind of 'out of fashion'. They lack integrity, too, as anyone who has to make up his or her personality by excluding others from relevant information - 'we and the others', a low-level social glue - just arranges himself in an herd animal state as one of those unmature stags who wants to get in power by all means.
And: someone who needs to make up status, dominance or assumed 'mastery' in such ways perfectly proves that he/she has none of those yet achieved. Furthermore, and that is my view, it is a clear sign that that human is
far from being ready at all for achieving the so highly desired
attributes, and so they get cought in their own little hamsterwheel.
Would be great they'd let that go.
You may read a well-written article on the 'Dunning-Kruger-effect' if you like so as this gets quite interesting and explains a lot:
People fail to grasp their incompetence precisely because they are incompetent.
And since, overcoming their incompetence would first require the ability to distinguish competence from incompetence, those people get stuck in a vicious cycle.
It is good to be careful not to place such people in any role where they may have power over others, as they are neither capable nor sufficiently e-ducated (guided 'out') to fulfill such. The main lesson is that the only real power we can achieve is the power over ourselves.
Only when we are there then we would be able to also steer others well and in particular, unselfishly - fortunately for them but unfortunately for society, at that stage people have overcome that strong (animal) drive for such.
Power over oneself is totally the most satisfying power anyone can achieve. Driven are only those who lack; they end up due to their engagement and focus, and this time this is unfortunate for society, in the positions in organizations and in societies where they got something to say. Works best with linear, hierarchically organized brain-hemispherers.
The main reason why people keep information in seclusion is easily identifyable as shere power play, and honestly, in quite a ridiculous way.
The main reason why people keep information in seclusion is easily identifyable as shere power play, and honestly, in quite a ridiculous way.
In organizations this attitude flourishes in the ways people do not pass on relevant information to any other colleague who should know - to let that colleague look stupid in certain situations and oneself being the first to act on something and 'know' -, which is not to my disregret meanwhile found to be a part of bullying techniques. Among children in a certain age there is the game 'I know something that you don't know' and somewhat in elementary school age, especially girls play that extensively. Normally this experience should be integrated and overcome ... and very often it does not as it proves so successfull at least in a world as we have set it up.
Inclusion/exclusion is the name of the game. There are persons who have learned that so thoroughly that they will not let it go later either.
In the end, the major social, communicative and interrelational-emotional problems always and only occur because humans do not evolve beyond certain stages of life.
Some remain socially-emotionally 5-6 years, some 15-16, some maybe make it to the 20 year mark. For most, that is their absolute end of maturing.
A counter remedy could be lifelong learning ... but as I heard, that sprang up for a short while and became out of fashion soon, too.
On the other hand, there is information which certainly is not meant for everyone - especially not for those 'everyones' who would not know how to put it into a proper context or would abuse the information. The big question is only always: who is that to decide?
[At this stage also the 'what is abuse' certainly needs to be discussed further. Let me make it short:
Abuse is any action which instrumentalizes another being for only personal gains while the used 'object' experiences direct or longterm disadvantages.
That is my very own and simplified definition by turning around the also pretty plain standard:
'Do as you like as long as you harm no other being'.
Wikipedia defines it similarly:
'Abuse is the improper usage or treatment for a bad purpose, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit.
But then we again need to discuss: what is improper? What is bad? What is unfair?]
In fact, these two only superficially contradictory looking approaches need to be carefully distinguished:
- information which belongs to an organization or organism as a society if not the whole global society
- personal information which relates to only private stuff.
To me, the whole arguments against Wikileaks' Julian Assange, when trying to prove that this delivery of 'secret' information is considerable as a crime - information which belongs to the world's people indeed if you follow the differentiation - and at the same time accusing him for not allowing others to sneak into his private life, is hollow, stupid, and only shows that those people who enmesh the one and the other are cought in a completely immature stage of 'I know something that you don't know and this gives me power because I choose whom I share it with' while claiming to be capable of making the world go around.
But it is nice how they expose their own real level of integrity and maturity with such statements and trying to attack someone with points which are just childish. They show much more about themselves than about the target they have in mind and that should give us to think about who is indeed at which levers in our societies.
It is funny though to see that people freely deliver all their data to instances they do not know how those instances will use the information one day. These instances may be in fact exactly the boys and girls as described above ... look it up and choose freely yourself whom you hand over your self.
Information as language are tools, and any tool can be used by anyone and each time in a very different way.
Have a great day,
Lyn
No comments:
Post a Comment