Why just a little power changes ppl http://www.npr.org/2013/08/10/210686...in?ft=1&f=1007 I've seen this phenomena with friends of mine who became Mods.....
I've also seen this happen in small churches, where some couples are taken as laymen from the flock and end up becoming a clique with the pastor & his wife. A separation comes up with the 'former' friends and the 'former' friends become the underlings. Think it must be a tribal thing, where in the early days, the leader had to distance himself from the individuals of the tribe in case he may have to sacrifice them as sacrificial ' point men' against other warring tribes or have them used up front to distract the mastodon prey during the kill!
Some people that never had any authority in real life interacting with other humans face to face may take a little interwebz authority and run with it
True. Those not use to having had authority in their lives may all of a sudden become 'drunk with power' after just tasting it....the 'big fish in a little pool' syndrome...
Most of the personality change potential is already resident within the person but has found the opportunity to come out. ex. I was a Mod on a social site many years ago who was BFF with another Mod who ended up buying the site. Things started out great, added more Mods, the no. of new users grew by leaps & bounds, until.....the new site owner took over all CONTROL, defrocking the Mods to no more than Advisors, and drove all of the Mods away eventually...as well as the site lost its luster to the current members who started dropping off. But this nice person I knew as a BFF ('her' labeling of me) Mod prior to site ownership had been sexually abused as a child, was physically abused over 3 marriages, and found herself in a position of CONTROL over many ppl and the little online world that she was the owner & site admin of! Moral of the story: She got a hold of CONTROL after all those years of not having any in her life, and it changed her---but not for the better...
Phenomenon. Phenomena is the plural form. --- Are you talking about mods here? I've a little experience with something similar that happened at the former Pravda English forum. Some people should never gain power, that's for sure.
Oh I dunno. I was a mod for half a year on a different political forums system and it was my experience that seeing things from the other side of the fence was a huge eye-opener since the goal was to keep the system running as smoothly as possible without playing favorites; meaning that sometimes you had to post in private messages requests for former posting buddies to cool their jets regarding over the line habits; habits that previously you might even have encouraged. Of course from their perspective you were power mad and determined to walk all over them and your other posting buddies with size twelve hobnailed boots . . . regardless of your actual intentions. It . . . was . . . interesting.
Maybe, but more often the burden of responsibility makes people change due to necessity. The idea of power is really subjective too. A worker may look at their boss and think they are aloof and impersonal, when in fact they are just exhausted and stressed out. When we find ourselves in authority roles it usually inhibits our actions more than it frees them.
Thx, must be the linguist in you that kicked in. Yeah, having been a supervisor in life several times, when promoted within a group of peers, relationships do change. Another reason on why in the military, fraternization of officers with the enlisted personnel is frowned upon. As in 'familiarity breeds contempt." My point is the drastic personality change that occurs, as in the job trumps all previous personal relationships. As a Mod, my personality didnt change, maybe because I had been in positions of authority and power b4 in my life. I value relationships & particularly friendships. To me, what is most important in this life, Loyalty is high on my character list. Personality changes indicate the job is more important than friendships. On a political forum where there are multiple subjective infractions per minute, probably 80% of postings are personal insults (often just innuendos), off topic, often tongue-in-cheek digs done in good humor,** etc. where the personality (and often ideology) of the Mod comes into 'judgement.' I believe that it takes a certain personality to be a fair and graceful Mod on a political forum such as this... ** I have several 'friends' of the other stripe on here that I regularly dig all with good intentions, that Mods have misinterpreted and 'dinged' me for...if the whole conversation of both parties was taken into context, a 'graceful' Mod wouldnt have done such! (Ref my recent infraction)
I'm former military and had been various forms of instructor in the civilian world after that, but all in all I found it exhausting volunteer work to be a moderator, and mainly because that particular system had about as much daily posting volume as this one but it was the first time that the two joint owners of the boards system decided to experiment with mods rather than continue to directly handle the ever increasing squabbles and other problems themselves. Us first time moderators all tried to remain friends with our former posting buddies but the mutually acrimonious posting habits of everybody ultimately meant that we had to (*)(*)(*)(*) off all the regulars until finally they got it through their heads that it was time to straighten up their act lest the two owners simply shut the site down in ever growing disgust -- which as the owners told us, was a very real possibility. So we were in the position of trying to save the board system itself while the average poster wanted to continue acting like 'dickheads' to one another as had been their habit up to that point in time. The owners on the other hand wanted to civilize posting standards enough to being in advertisers for their system . . . but the advertisers wanted a more civilized board than existed. It was a mess. We formed a committee and agreed to do everything as moderators on a group consensus basis; which worked to a certain extent. But it was pretty bad for many months. I never want to attempt that sort of thing again, but in retrospect I am happy that I found out what was involved in tackling such a project. I think that what I primarily learned from the effort was that the things that happen behind the scenes aren't necessarily what the posters THINK is happening. We never got them to understand that nearly every decision was worked out via a committee system and that none of us were randomly exercising our authority. We certainly never got them to believe -- even with the two owners addressing them directly -- that every decision we made was reviewed by them with the option of over-ruling us. Mostly though what I got from the interesting experience was that I never, ever want to do that sort of thing again . . . and that's not necessarily a bad thing to learn about oneself.
No doubt, being a Mod is a thankless job...however, Some ppl gravitate toward it with the authority & control that it offers. Just like I found out many years ago, that 'religious ppl' (I call them 'modern day Pharisees') gravitate toward church leadership positions. What I mean by 'religious pp' are those who like to judge and elevate themselves (w/o the 'robes' or maybe with) above others to show their great (and often superior) 'spirituality.' Usually happens in the smaller churches as they often get found out as ppl start leaving the church. Having been a layman leader, I've seen this too many times! "The greatest in the kingdom of God is as a servant,' not as one who lords over others But same power & control over ppl syndrome......as in 'Big fish, little pond"
Study explores how power gets to the brain July 4, 2013 Special to World Science http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/130704_power.htm
I'll comment on the idea that power changes people and that this change almost always has a negative connotation. I disagree with the premise that this change must always be received as antipathetic..meaning as an aversion. I can't speak for moderating a political forum, I can speak in terms of military leadership as a former commissioned officer. RHIP Rank has it's privileges. If you've been in the services for any length of time, I'm sure you've heard the colloquialism. Rank does indeed have it's privilege, I'm not going to argue otherwise, I'm presenting the caveat. It is precisely the abuse of privilege that embitters and creates much of the friction between people, Therefore it is of paramount importance and overriding responsibility, for an officer to take care of the people of the command, regardless of whatever size, before caring for himself or herself. It is a cardinal principle that requires a strict fidelity to, and not just lip service This is your job, an officer’s job is to put his or her people first and to be accountable for same.
I was non-com but father was an enlisted man who worked his way up to CWO. He has many stories of RHIP, such as: Brig Gen's flying to a remote radar site in MT to 'inspect' a 70 man operation that wasnt even under his responsibility, spending about 20 mins there and then 2 days trout fishing in the stream near it. And as the last article said, "But studies suggest that people who feel powerful tend to listen less, punish more harshly, act more hypocritically .." The hypocrisy as you also stated is the offending kicker when leading others..
Being aware of the negative influences of power and privilege can guard against it. Once it becomes lip service then yes, leading by example is hypocrisy in action. I'm making a point that there is a tendency to incorrectly broad brush those in leadership position, making a critical blanket statement. The inclination may exist, but an inclination can be guarded against and avoided.
Awareness and 'listening' to feedback (which includes the body language of those under you) is reqd. Why the enlisted men make fun of 2nd Louies as they havnt 'matured to rank' and leading men. Often will stress rank to get respect..
Leadership and being able to handle authority and power is best displayed in both as being an example but also in being 'graceful.' Knowing that grace can cement the relationship with an underling. The military is somewhat of a different animal in some respects, as leadership is supposed to be 'unquestioned' due to the war-time mentality. The best leader that I worked 'with' , whose men would follow him anywhere, was my last assignment CO, a Capt but who went thru bootstrap as a Ssgt in gaining his rank. Was graceful in not ever threatening those under him, and so was respected and got results by presenting a good character as the example for those to follow. Grace in his case was closed-door, heart-to-heart talks, with those who may not be cutting it or had an attitude problem (young GI's overseas away from family & loved ones for a 3 yr tour). No one ever got busted in rank, but turned around prior to the possibility.
---People that accept power can corrupt them are in a better position to wield it. ---I wanted to add that the concepts of "mind over matter" and the alchemists quest for turning base material into gold become much less fantastic and more relevant when we begin to explore how simple thoughts, feelings and actions can impact the brain, it's habituated functions and its cultivation.
Going back to the Mod discussion: usually a Site Owner and/or Admin prefers to stay above the fray and appreciates henchmen to do the 'dirty work.' (similar to Obama with Emanuel & Axelrod). And the henchman, some may be 'natural' (Rahm), enjoy the praise they get for doing that work. Also goes back to the previous studies about another motivation for power & control---'recognition.'
From what I've heard and read, the best example of being changed by power might be Donald Rumsfeld. Whatever level he rose to, he'd suck up to those above and urinate on those at or below. By urinating on those below, he'd enhance his status with those above.
Looks like he 'lived' it---who particularly did he urinate on?? My recollections was that he was 'too bold' and therefore came across as obnoxious... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/donald-rumsfelds-rules-vs-rumsfeldisms/
Urinate on/obnoxious, not much difference there. But it is my understanding that he was obnoxious to everybody who worked underneath him. And you have to be an arse-kisser royale to get the kinds of positions he did. The word sycophant comes to mind.
Sounds like a "link-less, partisan, hit job and a character assassination" to me. Bet if he had the nickname "Bourbony" instead of "Rummy" you would like him!
A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University http://www.prisonexp.org/ -------------------------- Milgram experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
