วีดีโอ

Well, the research of Organisational psychologist Tomas Comarro-Premuzic suggests that narcissistic traits hold greater predictive power than competence when it comes to who gets promoted into leadership positions. If you need an example, look at Trump and Biden. Many will claim that one or the other is competent, but if you’re committed to hierarchies of competence you have to commit to saying they are both competent.

​@@tactilephilosophy Okay, so what's your point? Do you think that young men and women should be told that to attain leadership positions, they must prioritize displaying narcissistic traits over demonstrating genuine competence?

​@@tactilephilosophy Do you think I became the captain of my high school rugby team not because I was the most competent player, but because I was the most narcissistic?

Captain of a rugby team is hardly comparable to being a ceo or any substantive leadership positions and so that point is moot. My point and the point of Tomas Comarro-Premuzic is that we must reevaluate at the cultural level what we look for in a leader. We place too much value on confidence, charisma and ambition. We should be placing more value on humility and integrity. I mean, jus imagine a presidential candidate who was humble and honest and didn’t lie and make empty promises.

@@tactilephilosophy If it is indeed true that narcissism is a stronger predictor of leadership than competence, then the primary reason Gandhi became the leader of the Indian independence movement wasn't due to his competence, but rather his narcissism.

It may be comforting to believe that doing good work is the primary reason for why people get promoted, but that does not correspond to the findings of researchers.

@@tactilephilosophy So you're saying that being good-looking and charming is a stronger predictor of receiving a promotion from your boss than actually being good at your job? That just doesn't sound right to me and I don't think that's true.

I never mentioned good looks. What Chomarro-Premuzic’s research shows is that confidence (unearned more often than earned) is a greater predictor than competence for getting a leadership position than competence. This is because promotions are given based on how the person giving the promotion perceives you, rather than based on pure merit. People with narcissistic traits are extremely good at managing appearances, making them good at getting leadership positions.

@@tactilephilosophy I don't think being narcissistic is a stronger predictor of getting promoted than genuinely peforming well in your job

Well, according to research it is. Particularly leadership positions.

Yes and that’s the point. The research of Organisational psychologist Tomas Comarro-Premuzic suggests that possessing narcissistic traits makes you more likely to get promoted at the detriment of the company you work for.

Thank you.

So nice of you, thank you 😊

The last line was “and is a particular quality of our current forms of control, and is a widespread phenomenon on all aspects of postmodern society”

@@tactilephilosophy Thank you so much for educating me, and not mocking me. I have gained so much deep respect for you.

Well, it depends which postmodern philosopher you’re interested in. For Deleuze I would recommend Tod May’s book an introduction to Gilles Deleuze, with Foucault you can just pick out any of his books, I recommend dicipline and Punish, Lyotard and Derrida I don’t know that well, but Rick Roderick has a great lecture on Derrida (and one on Baudrillard and Foucault as well) you can find on TH-cam. Baudrillard, it depends if you want something systematic or polemic. For systematic I recommend early Baudrillard for example the system of objects, but he is more famous for his later ideas and if you want those I recommend fatal strategies. Hope this helps:)

@@tactilephilosophy thanks a lot! I'm interested in Deleuze so maybe I should try Tod May's book. Keep your amazing work going ✨️

I also have a video on Deleuze and Gauattari’s what is philosophy (which, if you want to read primary literature might be a good start, it’s challenging but insightful), a TH-camr called plastic pills has a great video on the anti-oedipus and Deleuze’s political philosophy and the TH-camr Jonas Cheika has a great introduction to Deleuze talking about drum machines.

You could easily use Foucault to criticise contemporary left/liberal politics.

@@tactilephilosophy the irony is that the left considers Foucault to be some sort of postmodern Messiah but they have just taken his philosophy as a kind of table turning to usher in fascist progressivism. The level with which modern progressives have no basic understanding of Foucault and Marx is utterly terrifying.

Glad to hear it 😊

Well, you may have to wait a long time as I quite like Marx 😅

Well, first of all, yeah, of course there are many critiques of Marx, but you implied I should make one and I’m not sure I will. As to the TH-cam is a product of free market, that doesn’t even touch on Marx at all. It’s not like he said: free market bad! Capitalism bad! Marx’s is a lot more nuanced than most people give him credit for. He acknowledged that there are parts of capitalism that could do amazing things. However, he dared to critique it as well and hope for something better. Trust me, the majority of people who criticise Marx have never read him. Have you read him? If not then maybe you shouldn’t judge him one way or another.

Scholars always disagree about what any great thinker said. It’s known as the problem of interpretation and its an interesting topic. Personally I can understand Marx just fine. Sure, Das Kapital volume 1, 2 & 3 are notoriously difficult to read (not to mention dry as hell), but difficult is not the same as impossible. Just because someone is challenging to read doesn’t mean they don’t have valuable things to say. Early Marx, in contrast, is quite accessible and engaging. I ask again, have you read Marx or are you basing your opinions on what other people have said?

I would argue that Stalin, Mao and Lenin used Marx to justify their their actions rather than derive their actions from Marx’s writings. It’s kind of like how the Church used God to justify the inquisition rather than derive the inquisition from their religious texts.

Also, James Lindsay is a pseudo intellectual dishonest hack who wouldn’t recognise critical thinking if it hit him in the face.

Thank you for the thought provoking comment. You put it in quotation marks, can I ask where the quote is from?

@@tactilephilosophy from a talk by Osho

Well said!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thank you, this and the next few videos are re-uploads of older videos, however I’ll take the feedback with me into future videos.

Fascinating! Thank you for the comment!

Thank you! And thanks for the feedback, I’ll take it with me into future videos.

Sending you a virtual hug.

I will concede that brotherhood has a better plot, but I think 03 does a better job with the characters and themes. Ultimately I view brotherhood as an action adventure story and 03 as a psychological drama. The youtuber Lowart did an amazing series analysing the differences and similarities between the two. Seeing neither as superior, but recognising the strengths of both. I prefer the psychological angle and the deep existential questions it asks. It made me cry on multiple occasions.

About the allegations against Foucault you should know that when the guy making the accusations was probed for inconsistencies he admitted to only having circumstantial evidence. With regard to the letter he and many other french philosophers signed, I personally chalk it up to french people having a weird relationship with sexuality. Thank you for the compliments, glad you enjoyed the video.

@@tactilephilosophy Yes I can appreciate that type of perspective an I don't disagree altho it is concerning that there is even accusations. The letter well.. its public so I suppose it it's up to the people to make their own judgements. I personally find it deeply off-putting. I'm simply commenting on it because I think it deserves discourse yk. ---I really appreciate your channel and the effort you put into your videos. May success follow. Deo volente.

I totally get that. Thank you so much.

@@tactilephilosophy The phrase is “chalk it up” … not “chuck it up”. Perhaps your autocorrect is responsible for the error. Maybe we can chalk it up to that? “Wired relationships” though? Is that an idiosyncratic or overzealous autocorrect too? Must be.

@JAI_8 autocorrect, second language and reading-writing difficulties, yeah.

Sorry about that, the last couple of videos and the next few are re-uploads, but hopefully when I get back to making new content I’ll be able to address that. Thank you for the feedback, it is a precious resource on TH-cam

Thank you 👍

I don’t know that one, but hopefully I’ll be able to look into it at some point. Thanks for the suggestion.

Haha, love that 🤣

If you like universal truth, that’s fine. Deleuze just offers a different approach. Personally I find that universal truths only lead to bickering about who’s perspective is to be considered universal.

@@tactilephilosophy despite Deleuze's deep wishes to the contrary, not every truth claim has a perspective that is meaningful to interrogate. Also, the idea that all truth claims have perspectives is in itself a claim to universal truth. There is no escaping the claim of universal truth to one's own knowledge, otherwise it's not knowledge and just irrelevant whims of the mind. His "different approach" is just a pretense to critique all viewpoints from afar, while protecting himself from having epistemic "skin in the game." It's a coward's approach to philosophy.

Calling Deluze a coward is an adhominum attack, the lowest form of critique. In addition I think you’re straw manning his argument. Furthermore, I never discuss any claims Deleuze made about truth, I talk about Deleuze’s meta philosophy, of seeing philosophy as the creation of concepts, so with regards to my video, comments about Deleuze’s truth claims are irrelevant.

@@tactilephilosophy reading comprehension my friend. I called the approach cowardly, specifically an approach that critiques attempts at objective truth by pointing out the inevitability of subjective perspective, while not acknowledging that that "perspectivist critique" applies to one's own critique as well. An ad hominem would be saying that Deleuze's argument is wrong because he's a coward himself. But it's the approach that's cowardly, and I've explained why. One cannot refute objectivity of truth without undermining the validity of one's own refutation. The argument only works if you hide the fact that critiquing claims to objective truth apply to oneself. It is an approach that allows one to critique everything from an ivory tower, and so long as one never puts forward any truth claims, they can posture philosophical superiority. My critique is much broader than Deleuze, not an ad hominem towards him.

@@tactilephilosophy meta philosophy is a claim about truth, lol

I think Deleuze at least quotes Nietzsche as having said something like “philosophers tend to accept concepts as if they are given to them by some heaven.” And then something about how we should stop doing that and instead create concepts.

@@tactilephilosophy Yes. And I think D + G deliberately take pains to avoid circumscribing any particular rules for the creation of concepts. Always more Ethics than Morals. I would further suppose one aspect to their problem with the term "heaven" is that it is by definition 'above', too transcendent and immaterial, too abstract, too close to the eternal Platonic form, and thereby too hungry to subsume categories and posit hierarchies under its grasp through somewhat ironically... its lack of a circumscribed territory, zone of presence or affect.

Much appreciated!

Eh… I hope you mean thank and not spank… cause that feels a bit weird…

@@tactilephilosophy In that case, please accept my wholehearted thanks.

Thank you for leaving such a long and thought provoking comment. You put quotes on every paragraph. Could I ask who you are quoting?

@@tactilephilosophy From various talks by Osho.....Thank you!

Personally I don’t agree with what he is saying in the quotes, though It should be noted that I don’t see philosophy as a path to knowledge or wisdom. To me philosophy is about opening up new possibilities for living. I used to struggle a lot with anxiety and depression, but philosophy helped me get through that. It taught me to embrace and love life, where once I had no such love.

@@tactilephilosophy We all have different opinions on things. Thank you for your personal response. I am happy to hear it helped you.

I think where he said the man is blind, that was enough, other things were kind of redundant and philosophy will always exist, as many people as there are they will keep on introspecting and challenging other's paths. Osho is just one of them, just another speck of dust in the cosmos. We all are like that and within this little time my dear friend, learn as much as you can for there will be no time suitable than you can find now.

Yeah, future videos will have no music. Unfortunately I’m re-uploading some older vids which will have music, but after that, no music.

@@tactilephilosophy Thank you for the great content!

Thanks! 😊

Thank you

Thank you 😊

Thank you so much! Glad you enjoyed it 😊

I wish I did! I think.

Do you mean that philosophy isn’t telling the truth? Not clear what you’re trying to say with this comment.

Deleuze is not telling the truth .

What do you mean? Do you mean he is lying? Dishonest? Or do you mean that he is just wrong? What is it you are trying to say?

@@tactilephilosophy name some truths he pronounces.

Deleuze is a metaphysician, not an epistemologist, and therefore does not concern himself with truth as such. The closest you would get are his various theories, but these are metaphysical theories, not claims about truth. Why are you focusing on truth? I still don’t get what you’re trying to say with your comment.

Thanks. Unfortunately this is the best mike I could afford at this time, and I likely won’t be able to upgrade for some time.

@@tactilephilosophy I totally get it. Keep up the good work!

Thanks so much!!

Thank you, I’ll keep that in mind going forward.

Thanks, I’m Norwegian.

Thank you so much!

I’m assuming you mean Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard, Lyotard and Deleuze? In which case you’ll have to substantiate that claim, as Neo Marxists and postmodernists are constantly at each other’s throats and both would be offended by being equated by each other. In what way are they neo-marxists?

@@tactilephilosophy Spectres of marx I don't only mean deconstruction i mean all of the bubble that got inspired by marx heh even heidegger did but refused to acknowledge it sorta sorta Marx's influence starts at the synthesis of human science (politics economics etc...) and human intelligence (philosophy) But the human intelligence and science is in a way 2 sides of a coin the idea and the matter So everyone who does either philosophy in relation to human sciences or just furthers a Human science/intelligence synthesis is a neo Marxist The term is kind of not broad but marx is definitely the most important guy in the year of the deconstruction and even after that with the ccru and theory-fiction stuff Which you see the term theory fiction synthesize theory (scientific method) with fiction (very not scientific method) So i don't disagree with the neo Marxist label it's not as inaccurate as it sounds lol

Yes and no. If you’re using the term neo-marxist that broadly then it’s almost meaningless. Yes Marx is massively influential, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who is influenced by him and his theories are neo-marxists. Foucault, for example, said something like that marxism in the 19th century was like a fish in water, it can’t breathe anywhere else. Neo-marxist is usually reserved for people that try and update Marx’s theories (think Frankfurt School), not people who seek to replace them with their own theories or are inspired by Marx in some way. And yes, Derrida wrote about Marx in spectres of Marx, but his relationship with Marx is quite complex. Also, lumping the postmodernists together as neo-marxists is unhelpful. Derrida does not speak for the other thinkers. Baudrillard, for example, considered Marxism as part of the problem (symbolic exchange and death).

@@tactilephilosophy if it's yes and no Then it's a paradox I like paradoxes

Also now you have dialetheism Which says yeah well let's talk about it

Ok. What is it about my voice that makes it hard to understand? Is it just my accent? Also, what can I do to make my it easier to follow?

I think that your attention span isn't that great (as many of ours are nowadays) and the lack of music is making your mind drift. The speaker did just fine.

Ok, I do have attention span issues and my hearing was reduced by experiencing sustained loud noise. If you can understand it all, which is French philosophy, more power to you.

@tactilephilosophy see above. I do not wish to insult you or your voice but I have to use closed captions to follow it all. I only studied philosophy formally for one year. I am flattered that you replied directly to me.

Of course. I was only looking for feedback on how I could improve, if my voice was difficult to make out because I have an accent which I can’t do anything about or if there was something else. I was also wondering what specifically I could do to make the video easier to follow. Feedback is an invaluable tool on TH-cam.

“Good enough” doesn’t sound that good. Anything I can do to improve?

@tactilephilosophy I am more into philosophical content rather than its presentation. I think they are well done for me. May need improvements for beginners such as great openers and life related content.

Thanks, that’s great feedback! This was actually my first ever video, it never got many views, and since I’m busy I thought I’d give it another chance, and it’s doing pretty good 😊

Thanks!