576
Alleged context: Polish CEO Piotr Szczerek's company review bombed after taking child’s hat at usopen.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2025
576 points (100.0% liked)
Videos
6201 readers
2 users here now
Neat vids from youtube or wherever. Rules later
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Experimentally, yes.
https://www.npr.org/2014/04/04/295360962/does-money-make-you-mean
Did they also do any research into some kind of local proportion to their surroundings where the ratio of wealth had a cutoff point where people became less "human", as I will call it? Like for instance, I'm doing quite well financially, a lot better than my friends. But I'm not any different towards them since this started. Maybe I'd become less caring and compassionate once I reach a certain point? Once I get enough money?
Also curious about the correlation vs causation in that quote:
The Monopoly test seems to cover the causation question pretty well. Select one player at random and give them extra money or property at the start of the game, with all players being aware. The advantaged players become more anti-social in their play, and after the game will self-rate their "skill" level much higher than the disadvantaged players, downplaying the impact of their advantage.
Does that make them a piece of shit though?
I guess that depends on how permanent the effect is. It certainly makes them shittier for a time.
Like, even for that small period of time? Thinking you have skill when you don't makes you a piece of shit? Makes you greedy? Makes you take shit from children?
The Monopoly test is interesting and all, but I question its scientific validity. Is it transferable to all CEOs, and even a very wealthy CEO. Is the behavior even translatable to the behaviors we are attributing CEOs here? I don't even know.
I think we all hate giga-CEOs (yes me too) and can get blinded by that hate a little bit.
"piece of shit" is your term, not mine or the study's. If you want to know more, it's on the Interwebs. What I will say is that feeling like they have earned what they have because they are inherently better than others is pretty core to the CEO pathology.
I just don't feel like we can say it's "CEO" pathology. You have to have a company large enough, I think. Then it might start to get a grasp over you as a CEO. But I doubt small businesses have CEOs in the "vast majority" that think this way. I just cannot believe that. Despite that cute Monopoly spectacle. It just doesn't feel scientific.
Did I really need to specify "not all CEOs"? It's entirely possible that there are some CEOs that don't suck. There are probably CEOs that do suck, but for an entirely different reason. However, I think the vast majority of CEOs do fall under this umbrella, which is the best you are going to get with broad generalizations. I do have some experience with small business CEOs, and they certainly fit this pattern, but that's just my personal experience.
No because that's not what I'm disputing. I just cannot believe, for lack of evidence, that the "vast majority" of CEOs are like this. I just can't.
And one person's experience is indeed a small sample size, yes.
How do you think someone gets to be the CEO of a decently sized corporation? Hard work? Lots of people work hard, many a lot harder than CEOs. Supernormal Intelligence? CEOs are certainly more intelligent than everage, but they aren't rocket scientists, no matter what Elon wants us to think.
What makes them CEO material is a laser focus on the bottom line, and the willingness to absolutely anything to make that line go up faster. Being ethically compromised as human beings is part of the job description. Mentally healthy people are not qualified to be CEOs. That's the way our system is designed to function.
I don't think you know that in some countries, people can just be hired as a CEO. Hired as such because they have proven they have a leadership capacity. Or not. Sometimes people can take over as CEO because the original CEO had stepped down.
This happens all the time and it doesn't mean they're backstabbing or ruthless in any way.
Corporate culture in America can be quite different from other parts of the world. I feel like the discourse here is very US-centric.
I guess I did have to specify "not all CEOs". Yes, from time to time there are going to be exceptions. I don't accept your assertion that it's common, but I'm sure that, on average, the US is worse than most other countries in this regard.
Nobody gets hired as CEO for "leadership capacity" alone. They also have to demonstrate what they will lead the people to do, and that better be something that will make the shareholders money. Bernie Sanders has generational leadership skills, and no board of directors would ever hire him as a CEO, not unless they want the employees walking off with the company.
Another thing I will concede is that I'm talking about public corporations, the kind that are listed on the stock market. Those dynamics don't change much when you leave the US, unless it's a country where the government forces it.
You didn't. 👍
Many companies with a CEO are companies not on the stock market. Lots of companies are small. In fact, surely the "vast majority" of companies with a CEO are small companies not listed on the stock market?
So if you choose to exclude those, we aren't talking about the same thing here. You can't say "all CEOs" and not include all CEOs.
Charities in particular can have a CEO, and those can certainly be a lot more diverse. Exceptions aside, I do think it's true to varying degrees of all CEOs or really anyone with serious wealth.
No true Scotsman. Further clarifying that they need serious wealth. Which is far from the "vast majority" of all CEOs in the world.
I think we reached a consensus here?
Not really, but close enough.
yes
yes