Most people are lemmings being herded along through a fake social reality that has been created by sociopaths

Most of us are lemmings.

Most people have far fewer influence on their own actions than we assume. Our behavior is the result of the function that includes all of our stimuli and experiences. Most of our experiences and stimuli have been forged not by conscious thought, but by impressions made by others.

We are being forged all day. We turn on our phones first thing in the morning and we check for updates from friends – regardless of whether the people on our social media truly are our friends. We compare how we’re doing to them. Are they doing something we want to be doing? Do they own something we want to own? Mark’s new watch is awesome. And girls like Mark. We begin the day with wanting.

Then we go to work. We put in 8 hours working for our company so that we can afford our rent or mortgage, Mark’s watch that we saw on social media, and anything else that comes up – either emergencies or new-found wants.

Our job is to create and sell products or services to other people and companies so that our company makes money so that we don’t lose our jobs. We do this by creating demand for our product (through marketing and advertising) and by filling that demand (by creating quality products and getting it to our customers). We create wants. Every other company is doing the same thing. They need to sell, or they die.

When we go home, we turn on the TV. We watch the shows our coworkers are watching so that we will have something to talk about. We subscribe to the networks (Netflix) so we can watch those shows. We see the lives of the TV stars and imagine how our lives would be if we had a beautiful girl and a house with glass walls.

We check for deals on Amazon for a watch similar to Mark’s. It’s not that expensive, so we buy it. We go to bed looking forward to our new watch we can share with Mark and the coworkers.

Our reality is shaped by sociopaths.

The owner of the corporation we work for has a lot to consider. He wants to make money so he can do everything he wants in life. He wants to leave a legacy. He wants happy employees. He wants to be liked. The CEO’s first responsibility is to the shareholders of the company.

If shareholders don’t view the company as more valuable than the competition, they will leave and invest their money in the competition. If shareholders invest their money in the competition, the competition will have more funding for projects, new employees, and growth. If the competition grows faster than your company, your company will die. If your company dies, the employees will be unhappy, the CEO’s legacy will be ruined, and he won’t be liked. He may make a lot of money, but he will have failed, and he doesn’t want to fail.

So, the CEO must maximize shareholder value, above all else in life. Your needs and my needs, as workers, are far less important than maximizing value. If value means growing in one segment and shrinking in another, we better hope to be in the former. The CEO’s job is to not prioritize the workers in the shrinking segment of the company. His job is to prioritize the value being presented to shareholders. The CEO must be unemotional in his decision. He must be firm and decisive. If he considers the employees in the unproductive business units, he will keep the failing unit and lose to the competition. So, he doesn’t consider them.

The CEO is unempathetic in his behavior, even if that isn’t what he is thinking. He is a sociopath, even if he aches for the employees that are let go. A true sociopath – an individual that doesn’t have empathy for others, will thrive in this environment, and a sociopath with ambition often does end up at the head of companies for this reason – he’s willing to make decisions that influence others, and he’s willing to do this with his intentions in mind. At a CEO level, these intentions often align with shareholders. Even when this sociopath isn’t in control, the role dictates sociopathic behavior in order to succeed by maximizing value.

A little more on this. I argue that it is more likely to be an actual sociopath that ends up in these positions than normal, empathetic people ending up in these positions where they are forced to make sociopathic decisions. Psychotherapists estimate that 4% of the population is sociopathic. Of that 4%, a much larger amount end up in positions of power. Sociopaths are willing to make social sacrifices that others aren’t willing to make. They are willing to compromise their relationships and status within one social circle that individuals who have strong empathy are not willing to make. The sociopath is willing to make difficult decisions without batting an eye – and makes them in his own interest. This is a good quality for an executive.

When companies need to grow, they need to sell more products or services. To sell more products and services, they must create that demand so that customers realize the need to buy. To create a demand, corporations target the psychology of individuals.

People are susceptible to emotional decisions. Emotional decisions are how products are sold. We don’t have a physical need for clean clothes, a new car, or a watch as beautiful as Mark’s. Companies make us want the car and the watch by making us fear.

We fear what would happen if we were ridiculed for having dirty clothes. We don’t want to look silly. So, we buy clothes. We fear dying alone, or being stuck with a life partner that isn’t our equal. We buy the watch to show our status. It’s status that gets the hot chick in the movie. So we buy a watch. We are sold an image of a happy family waking up on Christmas to the new car with the oversized bow and a puppy. So we buy a puppy. And a car, with a large bow. The puppy needs the latest toys so that he doesn’t seem inferior to the other dogs at the dog park.

We constantly chase status because we fear the consequences that would result if we aren’t seen as filing that status. We have fear because the sociopathic companies instill fear so that we will buy more products to settle our insecurities, because the company needs to sell so that they don’t lose to the competition.

If we don’t play this game – if we don’t get the watch, the car, the clothes, or the puppy, we are “losers”. We are rejects that can’t keep up with the Joneses. We fail to get the status that is sold to us. When we don’t have the status, we “can’t” get the girl. We “can’t” have the happy family. We “can’t” be happy.

This is what corporations want us to think. The amoral systems with sociopathic leadership don’t want us to be fulfilled and not want things. Because then we won’t buy things. We are sold the images of happiness. We are sold the idea that if we buy this one thing, then we will be happy. If we aren’t happy, it’s because there’s “one more thing” that we need. Surely it’s not because we haven’t confronted our own insecurities and absolved ourselves from needing things. Right?

Most people are lemmings being herded along through a fake social reality that has been created by sociopaths. We are wired to follow the safe, proven road, and it’s difficult to go against that. The safe, proven road, is often the manifested idea of unemotional, unempathetic systems that benefit a few individuals at the expense of others.

It is not worth going to college for any field outside of STEM or Philosophy.

It is not worth going to college for any field outside of STEM or Philosophy. It made sense until 20 years ago to go to college and get a degree. A degree showed a competence and intelligence that stood out on a resume. By presenting a degree to an employer, the employer knew you had the intelligence to go to college and the independence to make it through years dealing with adults.

College only cost hundreds of dollars, and degrees, whether STEM or humanities, led to almost guaranteed employment. This was during a time when the management professions and the “value-add” industries like advertising and marketing were added to businesses. These value-adds came from the humanities. Marketing and advertising appeal to the psychology of people. Management is applied sociology.

These were the booming jobs of the time, and a humanity degree not only checked the college box – it was preferred. These degrees added the value that organizations were looking for.

The labor market has changed in the last 20 years. Universities changed too, but they did not change to keep up with the changes in the labor market. The changes in universities ran counter-productive to the changes in the labor market.

Where humanities were the value-adding jobs from the 50s through the 80s, the internet has changed the requisite jobs and, because of that, the requisite skills needed. The internet runs on math and technology. STEM degrees are the degrees that are employable. The management and marketing jobs of the 50s are being replaced by technology just like the labor-intensive jobs were replaced 40 years before. The reduction in management and marketing jobs means fewer degrees in humanities are needed.

STEM is the humanity degree and the management job of the 60s. These are the employable degrees and the driver of technology, which is the driver of the current economy. Instead of management and sales adding value like 50 years ago, technology is able to add value by cutting out the managers and the salespeople. Technology connects buyers and sellers where the humanity-pedigreed salesmen did until recently.

Humanities degrees are being produced like money in a collapsed economy. Except, unlike money in a collapsed economy, the degrees being produced cost tens- to hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, we have more people graduating college than ever, which has debased the degree so that not all graduates are guaranteed a job. Humanity degrees add little value in this technology-driven world where life is managed with code.

The majority of students are still choosing to major in the humanities. There are a majority of college graduates leaving university unprepared for the job market, which is technology-driven and requires technical degrees. Also, they have hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans that must be paid back.

These debt-ridden graduates have to find employment to pay back debt. Those that are lucky find themselves a management or marketing job, which are decreasing in number as technology improves and reduces the need for these functions. Those that are unlucky pick up a low-paying service job. This has become a stereotype – the barista with a humanities degree. A well-read barista is attractive – there’s nothing wrong with serving coffee. A barista who has to be there because they owe the bank $200,000 is not attractive. That person is enslaved with no way out in sight. They must work for a company until the debt is paid off. There is a legal and ethical commitment to pay off the debt.

Why are there so many humanity degrees? Because of those blasted humanity degree students from 50 years ago. The universities and banks are profit centers that make money with each enrolled student paying tuition. There are advertising channels that promote more students going to college and getting degrees. The banks and universities don’t care what degree is studied. They care about $200,000. Which, if that’s the price of tuition and the person is working at Starbucks to pay it off, she will end up paying far more than double that.

College is a scam for everyone that is not majoring in a STEM degree. Students are sold a lie that they “need to go to college” to get a job or to find a good relationship. This is all just branding by the universities and loan banks. Any skill can be learned online these days, and banks and universities are sweating hoping the masses don’t drop out to develop skills online. The advertisers are working hard to keep the college brand attractive. They are heavily incentivized to make college attractive.

“It’s an important phase of life.” “It’s where you develop the social skills.” These are all jargon statements sold by the loan banks. You know what else is an important phase of life and a place you develop social skills and have fun? Timeshares in retirement. Rent a timeshare to signify your new phase in life. Meet other travelers and party. You can do this for a lot less than a college degree.

The exception to all this is the philosophy degree. The philosopher learns that none of this is really necessary. You can get a degree in STEM, get a high-paying job, create a technology that makes businesses better, but if at the end of the day you still aren’t satisfied because of an insecurity or relationship drama, then what’s it all for? To better humanity? That’s great, as long as it doesn’t cost your suffering. You can make money and then face your insecurities and internal demons, or you can face your demons from the start. Many people face a demon called consumerism. The philosopher recognizes this demon and stays away.

You can become a philosopher by reading books, through experiencing all the hells of consumerism and life, or through an expensive degree. Being philosophical is worth it. The philosopher finds meaning in life itself, and knows not to become enslaved to debt, or anything else. Hopefully, he didn’t buy an expensive degree to learn that lesson.

It is not worth going to college for any field outside of STEM or Philosophy. This is because:

  • The price of tuition is increasing.
  • Skills needed for jobs are becoming more technical.
  • Philosophers understand you don’t need jobs and can find meaning without the 9-to-5.

Democracy inevitably leads to socialism due to evaporative cooling of high-value individuals.

In the long-run, all democracies will turn away from their capitalist origin to socialism. This is destructive, tyrannical, and entirely natural. This happens because of the evaporative cooling of high-value individuals. Meaning, there are fewer high value individuals that are interested in competing for status.

The strong favor and thrive in a competitive, capitalist society and crave the freedoms that can be earned. The strong are out-reproduced by the weak. This goes contrary to many proponents of Darwinism, but it is actually directly in-line with Darwin theory. There are two Darwinian strategies for survival. One is to reproduce with the strongest and best to produce the strongest and best, because that is what is most likely to survive. Traits such as physical strength, cunning and mental ability, leadership and social savvy – these are all traits sought after and signs of reproductive fitness.

The other Darwinian strategy is to mass reproduce. Mass reproduction, whether through multiple partners or one, requires less work than finding a strong partner and places emphasis on quantity, not quality, of genetics – and therefore offspring. Through this, even if a couple offspring die off and don’t successfully reproduce, one or two will. This is a reproductive strategy favorable to weak individuals.

These weak individuals are the losers in the capitalist system. To succeed in capitalist societies requires similar traits that make for attractive reproductive (masculine) qualities. Social savvy, intelligence, even physical strength – these are qualities women find sexy and qualities that are rewarded in the job market.

These traits are masculine because they are favored in the sexual market by women. More intelligent, wealthy women do not have higher value in the sexual market. This also contributes to an evaporative cooling of the successful because these intelligent women have far fewer children than non-intelligent women, if any at all.

Losers in the job market cannot afford the luxuries that are available to the wealthy – those that succeed in the capitalist system. However, they want the same luxuries. They want them for two reasons – they want more than they currently have, because they see the wealthy and want what they can’t have. Also, the bottom classes often fail to have the spiritual freedom that comes with wisdom which, most often, comes with intelligence and experience. Instead of seeking spiritual freedom, the bottom classes are more likely to want material things to escape unhappiness of the day-to-day.

This means that the bottom classes in a capitalist system are more likely to want things, less likely to earn and afford the things they want, and therefore likely to despise the wealthier classes that are capable of both earning, getting, and not needing. Over time, this bottom class is likely to grow, since they are the ones that reproduce most, since that is the reproductive strategy that makes the most sense for their situation.

As the bottom classes grow, they will be more likely to gain favorable political position in a democratic society. A democracy favors those who are the majority. When that majority is intelligent and strong, the majority will tend to a capitalistic society where competition and incentives reward success. These capitalistic societies grow in technology and infrastructure.

When the majority is the lower class – made up largely of the weak, unintelligent, and wanting, the majority will favor a socialistic society. This is one where incentives are broken, and the poor are rewarded with the efforts of the rich. We have seen this in every society that has tried socialism. It always starts with power in the hands of a few. Stalinist Russia started with a revolt against the landowners, which were few in number. When the masses stand up to the few in number and take control, you get the poor in material and the poor in spirit and the poor in intellect at the head of society.

When you have the poor in spirit, intellect, and material at the head of society, you get them taking the material by force. They want and feel entitled to things, so they take it. They do not have the spiritual strength to require earning the things they want. And they don’t have the intellect to understand or consider the implications of their actions. Sure, as they start taking and disincentivizing production, the economies collapse and governments turn to other methods of producing perceived wealth.

When the poor in spirit and intellect rule and their economy slows down, they have done several things in the past, none of which have been to incentivize production or employ austerity programs – these both go in the face of their philosophy that got them in power, and the desires that led to their rise to power.

No. Instead, the socialists have printed money, as if the paper with the president’s face on it is the answer to the economy. Worthless money does not create a worthwhile economy. Printing money devalues the money in circulation and drives up the price of goods, without influencing the value of the goods.

Capitalism fuels this change. Because the lower classes make up the majority of consumers, the most successful businesses market to these demographics. Not just businesses, but anything requiring money, votes, or consensus. That means politicians and, when it comes to receiving funding, institutions such as schools and hospitals. Businesses will cater to the lower-value individuals. They will promote entertainment and ideas that appeal to the masses, at the expense of the values and interests of the successful.

The other strategy is to forcibly take from the wealthy. Since the lower classes continue to suffer, the wealthy are forcibly taken from and their goods given to the poor. The poor in material, intellect, and spirit bring down everyone.

How do you defend against this? I never understood China’s one child rule until I wrote this essay. By limiting reproduction among citizens, you can effectively control the ratio of high-value individuals and low-value individuals. This requires government oversight into communities stretching into the slums.

The alternative to this is to not have a democracy. A dictatorship of sorts removes the possibility of the lower classes taking power through democratic election. Dictatorships, however, still face the problem of lower classes reproducing at higher rates than the upper class, high-value individuals. When the lower classes unite, they can topple the much smaller dictatorship using their numbers and force. It’s bloody, and it’s bound to happen.

No one’s happy, and the poor are willing to fight to see if the riches will make them happy. Riches won’t make them happier, because they will still be poor in spirit, but they will fight for the riches anyway.

Democracy inevitably leads to socialism due to evaporative cooling of high-value individuals. There will be fewer high-value individuals because high-value individuals don’t reproduce at the rates of low-value, and the values of modern high-value individuals will cease to be promoted in media and academia. This will lead to socialism because the jealousy of the lower classes will work its way into public policy that redistributes from the wealthy individuals.