I read that Google in its early days had a stringent hiring policy, with all (?) hires vetted from the top.…

I read that Google in its early days had a stringent hiring policy, with all (?) hires vetted from the top. The reason? A belief that even one hired idiot would become a nucleus of idiocy, within the organisation. There’s real wisdom about humans, in that choice. /1

We’re determined to live multiple myths about human beings, in politics, business and elsewhere. One of the greatest of these is the idea that humans and their organisations and societies operate as information processors. A rationalist fantasy. /2

For several years here I’ve shared work that shows that humans instead *always* act socially, first and foremost. And acting socially means they act, as people like Will Storr and Rene Girard show so brilliantly, in rivalry with other humans, for status. /3

Imitative rivalry, Girard’s ‘atomic’ level of all human belief and behaviour. We imitate others, to belong to social groups, in rivalry with others within that group and then against other groups, to compete for social status. Social status IS identity, for social animals. /4

We do this to actually be somebody, rather than nobody. You are literally a nobody, without social status. You can say the most brilliant things, from a regionalist point of view. But without social status, you are a non-entity. Nobody will listen or care. /5

As Girard says, you are much more likely to become the scapegoat, when imitative rivalries reach a level of intensity where widespread toxic violence is imminent. The scapegoating mechanism is a release valve, for that danger. /6

To go back to Google’s hiring mechanism, I think social media shows a similar mechanism in play. Its ‘free speech’ (BS) operating principle would be like Google allowing anybody to work there, with no vetting at all. Free speech is always a con. /7

Speech that is free in the way free speech advocates suggest would be like a pumping heart sitting on a table, unconnected to any of the rest of a body. Free speech is not even language. Stripped of any ‘restrictive’ context, it has no meaning whatsoever. /8

It’s just a Trojan Horse disguise for those who wish to bypass established norms, customs and traditions. Who want the right to say and do anything they like, without any resistance from established traditions, and their embedded long wisdom for avoiding violence. /9

So social media over time, and who can’t see this, just becomes the now famous ‘sewer’. Like unvetted hires leading to a culture of exponentially growing idiocy and dysfunction within an organisation. /10

If nobody is making value judgments, the tough calls about what’s right and what isn’t, then it’s a race to the bottom of human decency, intelligence and behaviour. Things will not only become dysfunctional, they will become vile. Toxic darkness. /11

This platform shows it so well. Some old-fashioned social networking remains, a place to swap ideas and connect with interesting people. But it’s a tiny archipelago now sinking in an ocean of uncontrolled toxic rivalry, activating vile, debased depths of experience. /12

Look to the lives and businesses of the most prominent activists for free speech. Do they practice what they preach? Absolutely they don’t. They favour the most ‘authoritarian’ and restrictive behaviours, in the running of their own concerns. The con is up. /end