The differences between religious and non-religious brains.

[Hawker]

I'll read your third link from inc and then I'll get back to you. I will also address your post on emotion later. However, since your forbes link contradicts itself. I doubt I'll suddently find evidence of narcissism/psychopathy being a good leadership quality.

Here's another one:

You must be registered for see links

while it emphasizes being humble, it also emphasizes narcissism as a trait for a good leader.

"Recent research examined leaders who were narcissistic yet humble (two seemingly oxymoronic traits) and found that not only could the two apparently contradictory personal attributes exist simultaneously in the same leader, but narcissistic executives who were able to temper, or counter-balance, their self-centered egocentricity with humility often proved to be superior leaders."

The only thing the guy can say is Dawkin and like minded people are intelligent. Intelligent people can be wrong, have been for years and will continue to be. In Science what is considered is the hypothesis being presented, the credentials of the person(s) who presented it, their social standing, fame are irrelevant. Many scientists today worship Einstein, but he was no more than a clerk when he first wrote his paper on relativity, if he was judged on his job alone the theory would have never been published.

Hawker's worship of these men is unfortunately prevalent among many young men who think they posses vast knowledge.

You didn't even understand the sarcasm of my earlier response to you. And here you are writing a novel with your mouth foaming.

 

[Gerkak]

You didn't even understand the sarcasm of my earlier response to you. And here you are writing a novel with your mouth foaming.

Lmao, I did understand(which is why I didn't reply to you and your post came immediately after Xplode's). That is the only thing you can do, you blindly worship these vile creatures, everyone here knows it. My mouth foaming? :lol you act as if what you write affects me, I know your next post is you accusing me of being a person who practices religion :lol.

Your behavior mirrors that of a religious extremist, anyone who doesn't share your view must belong to the side you are against. Go ahead and carry on your feeble arguments. You refuted nothing that I wrote.

 

[Hawker]

Lmao, I did understand. That is the only thing you can do, you blindly worship these vile creatures, everyone here knows it. My mouth foaming? :lol you act as if what you write affects me, I know your next post is you accusing me of being a person who practices religion :lol.

Your behavior mirrors that of a religious extremist, anyone who doesn't share your view must belong to the side you are against. Go ahead and carry on your feeble arguments. You refuted nothing that I wrote.

Dafuq, this thread isn't even about Dawkins so chillax.

If you have an argument relating the topic, make it. Otherwise:

 

[Gerkak]

Dafuq, this thread isn't even about Dawkins so chillax.

If you have an argument relating the topic, make it. Otherwise:

Lol when did I say it was, can you read? In my first post on this thread I said "Dawkin himself is such a person" meaning I used Dawkin as an example to emphasize the point I was trying to make. It isn't my fault if you can't understand that, perhaps English isn't your first language or you aren't that fluent in it, if so then it isn't your fault either.

Again my argument was made long ago in the last post which you ignored in order to make a sarcastic reply. Take your own advice, read and comprehend before replying.

 

[Hawker]

Lol when did I say it was can you read? In my first post on this thread I said "Dawkin himself is such a person" meaning I used Dawkin as an example to emphasize the point I was trying to make. It isn't my fault if you can't understand that, perhaps English isn't your first language or you aren't that fluent in it, if so then it isn't your fault either.

Again my argument was made long ago in the last post which you ignored in order to make a sarcastic reply. Take your own advice, read and comprehend before replying.

All that post was, was just Dawkins bashing and the claim that intelligent people can also be wrong. No shit sherlock. Anything else?

Also you said this:

"If emotion is removed then people would be programmable there would be no resistance. A child without emotions can be molded as easily if not more so than one with emotions. The problem is that these scientists are evolutionists which is in itself is a religion. "

1. No one is saying emotions should be removed. My point was that religions is based purely on emotions and indoctrination, not on logic.

2.Science is not a religion. This is a huge fail on your part.

 

[Yubel]

Here's another one:

You must be registered for see links

while it emphasizes being humble, it also emphasizes narcissism as a trait for a good leader.

"Recent research examined leaders who were narcissistic yet humble (two seemingly oxymoronic traits) and found that not only could the two apparently contradictory personal attributes exist simultaneously in the same leader, but narcissistic executives who were able to temper, or counter-balance, their self-centered egocentricity with humility often proved to be superior leaders."

The Inc article basically supported all the positive aspects of narcissism found in the forbes study(creativity, good strategic-thinking and communication skills) without addressing the negative ones at all.

It mentions the positive relationship of narcissism and leader emergence but not effectiveness which support the findings in the forbes article(you can't be effective if you're not a team player, can't manage, take responsibility or accomplish your goals).

Here is the abstract for one of the studies in the article.
"Past empirical studies relating narcissism to leadership have offered mixed results. This study integrates prior research findings via meta-analysis to make 4 contributions to theory on narcissism and leadership, by (a) distinguishing between leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness, to reveal that narcissism displays a positive relationship with leadership emergence, but no relationship with leadership effectiveness; (b) showing narcissism's positive effect on leadership emergence can be explained by leader extraversion; (c) demonstrating that whereas observer-reported leadership effectiveness ratings (e.g., supervisor-report, subordinate-report, and peer-report) are not related to narcissism, self-reported leadership effectiveness ratings are positively related to narcissism; and (d) illustrating that the nil linear relationship between narcissism and leadership effectiveness masks an underlying curvilinear trend, advancing the idea that there exists an optimal, midrange level of leader narcissism."

Note the bolded. There is no relationship between narcissism and leadership effectiveness.
Essentially we can conclude from this study and others that narcissism gets you noticed(as it's required for leadership emergence) but just because you're put into a position of leadership doesn't mean you're qualified to be a leader.
That takes more than just being full of yourself and a persuasive individual.


Being humble might make you a team player but I don't think it can make up for lack of management skills, responsibility and accomplishment.

 

[Gerkak]

All that post was, was just Dawkins bashing and the claim that intelligent people can also be wrong. No shit sherlock. Anything else?

Also you said this:

1. No one is saying emotions should be removed. My point was that religions is based purely on emotions and indoctrination, not on logic.

2.Science is not a religion. This is a huge fail on your part.

When did I say science was a religion? Again dude learn to read, I said evolutionism and the blind faith and worship of scientists and their infallibility not science. Science is wonderful, man would be no where without it.

My post was not just Dawkin bashing In the last part I said anyone can be horrible regardless of their views and Ideologies if I uses ISIS to judge muslims I would say 1.6 billion people are terrorists, if I judged atheists using the communists then I would say all athiests support genocides. Again you have eyes use them to read and the brain you have to comprehend.

Religion is based on emotion an indoctrination? So is every ideology and philosophy, what's your point we should get rid of those as well? The people who follow it(religion) believe there is logic to it, just as those who believe in the big bang believe there is logic to it

 

[Legendary Saiyan]

Religion is based on emotion an indoctrination? So is every ideology and philosophy, what's your point we should get rid of those as well?

I think it's just how each ideology works. And since ISIS is the now... a certain religion is taking the blame.

 

[Hawker]

The Inc article basically supported all the positive aspects of narcissism found in the forbes study(creativity, good strategic-thinking and communication skills) without addressing the negative ones at all.

It mentions the positive relationship of narcissism and leader emergence but not effectiveness which support the findings in the forbes article(you can't be effective if you're not a team player, can't manage, take responsibility or accomplish your goals).

Here is the abstract for one of the studies in the article.
"Past empirical studies relating narcissism to leadership have offered mixed results. This study integrates prior research findings via meta-analysis to make 4 contributions to theory on narcissism and leadership, by (a) distinguishing between leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness, to reveal that narcissism displays a positive relationship with leadership emergence, but no relationship with leadership effectiveness; (b) showing narcissism's positive effect on leadership emergence can be explained by leader extraversion; (c) demonstrating that whereas observer-reported leadership effectiveness ratings (e.g., supervisor-report, subordinate-report, and peer-report) are not related to narcissism, self-reported leadership effectiveness ratings are positively related to narcissism; and (d) illustrating that the nil linear relationship between narcissism and leadership effectiveness masks an underlying curvilinear trend, advancing the idea that there exists an optimal, midrange level of leader narcissism."

Note the bolded. There is no relationship between narcissism and leadership effectiveness.
Essentially we can conclude from this study and others that narcissism gets you noticed(as it's required for leadership emergence) but just because you're put into a position of leadership doesn't mean you're qualified to be a leader.
That takes more than just being full of yourself and a persuasive individual.


Being humble might make you a team player but I don't think it can make up for lack of management skills, responsibility and accomplishment.

Fair enough but again there are alot of mixed results:

For example in here:

You must be registered for see links

(I'm not sure if this is the same study as in one of my forbes links) it states that narcissistic leaders are indeed effecticve:

"it reveals self-centered CEOs who crave acclaim are more likely to keep their companies at the forefront of technological innovation."

"According to our findings, the more narcissistic the CEO, the more heavily and the earlier a firm invests in new technology considered novel and unproved. This is especially true during the “excitement” phase, when the narcissist believes a respected audience will note and applaud daring behavior."

"Narcissists, after all, are characterized by a sense of superiority, a desire to dominate their environments, restlessness, a lack of empathy and a strong need for attention. This is why they tend to attach a high probability of success to anything they do and why they are particularly drawn to actions and strategies that will earn acclaim for their audacity and bravado. They take risks that their more timid and less confident counterparts would shun. Narcissistic CEOs possess a near-unshakeable belief that their company, under their leadership, can make new technology work."

 

[Gerkak]

I think it's just how each ideology works. And since ISIS is the now... a certain religion is taking the blame.

All people have brains they should use them, it is obvious ISIS is not the majority so let the target be ISIS. I suppose those with feeble minds find it easier to just generalize and paint a picture using a wide brush over the thing so to speak. Talk about being controlled by emotion and indoctrination without logic.... Hold up, isn't this what Hawker ascribes only to religious people?

 

[NarutoKage2]

Yeah I completely agree with you. Seeing as our prime minister is a hardcore christian (laestadian) and is also a millionaire and has master's degree in engineering it is clear to me that being religious doesn't exclude analytical skills. But this study just gives us the general outline on how these people differ.

Bolded: that's what I got from it also.

Its a fair conclusion to make.

when humans commit crimes and barbaric acts they say evolution programmed man to do so as if man was meant to be a vicious animal. Dawking himself is such a person, he said he saw no problem with pedophilia as long as both parties accepted, he also said there was no problem with a 16 year old girl drowning her new born baby during her prom night in a toilet.

Why should the words of such a vile human being be considered. We might as well bring back the study that says that Ashkanazi jews are the most intelligent. Every human can be terrible without empathy,morals etc regardless of what their religion, race, gender etc.

If emotion is removed then people would be programmable there would be no resistance. A child without emotions can be molded as easily if not more so than one with emotions. The problem is that these scientists are evolutionists which is in itself is a religion.

'Dawkins', not dawkings, lol .

And evolution is a religion eh? How do you explain religious (christian)scientists who study and research evolution then?

The best way to denounce and de legitimize faith is by proclaiming natural science that is based on empirical evidence as opposed to faith , as you have just done.

 

[Hawker]

...

1. People With Traits Of Psychopaths Actually Make The Best Leaders:

You must be registered for see links

2.Psychopathy and succes linked:

You must be registered for see links

Andy McNab and Oxford psychology professor Kevin Dutton reveal how acting like psychopaths could help us in work, life and love


3. Greatest U.S presidents were psychopaths:

You must be registered for see links

Political partisans delight in labeling opposition leaders as malign or even psychopathic — but it turns out that U.S. presidents with high levels of certain psychopathic traits may actually do better on the job, no matter what their party affiliation, according to new research.
The study, which was based on presidential performance ratings and personality assessments by hundreds of historians and biographers in several different surveys, found that one psychopathic characteristic in particular was linked to success in presidency: fearless dominance.

4.CEO as the most psychopath profession:

You must be registered for see links

"Being a CEO or in a position of true power requires certain skills and abilities that psychopaths exhibit with ease. Making objective, clinical decisions entirely void of emotion, planning meticulously and in great detail, being patient, restless and confident, having a need to be in control… are all characteristics that psychopaths and prominent leaders share.”"

"These findings tallied with other research linking psychopathy with CEO’s and leaders of the corporate world. Research has shown that in the general population, around 1% of people meet the classification for a psychopath, but among industry leaders the figure is 4 times higher."



This has always been pretty clear to me as psychology is something that interests me alot, but is it becoming clearer to you? Also as I said I spend a year in the army and believe me the best leaders showed pretty narcissistic qualities. This was clear in our training. The most emotional ones were ineffective and insecure.

 

[Legendary Saiyan]

All people have brains they should use them, it is obvious ISIS is not the majority so let the target be ISIS. I suppose those with feeble minds find it easier to just generalize and paint a picture using a wide brush over the thing so to speak. Talk about being controlled by emotion and indoctrination without logic.... Hold up, isn't this what Hawker ascribes only to religious people?

The hypocrisy is... laughable on some NB users. One can't claim to have morals when said person has hate speech and a double standard mindset. Another can't picture religious people as aggressive and blind while the other side is no different. To the point where even one claims religion as fairy tales and no other reason while claiming religious people as narrow minded. Pots really go well with kettles. *shrug*

 

[Gerkak]

'Dawkins', not dawkings, lol .

And evolution is a religion eh? How do you explain religious (christian)scientists who study and research evolution then?

The best way to denounce and de legitimize faith is by proclaiming natural science that is based on empirical evidence as opposed to faith , as you have just done.

Thanks for the correction lol

Christian scientists who study evolution? Nothing wrong with that, studying something does not mean you believe in it like a religion. Rather the blind faith in evolution(despite its many gaps and flaws) to the point where many regard it as an absolute truth is religion, this is why I call it 'evolutionism'. People should regard evolution as it is a hypothesis, there isn't any undeniable proof for it. Again there is nothing wrong with studying evolution whether one has a religion or not.

I would love science to be based on empirical evidence(as that is how it is supposed to be) but sadly many things that many claim to be based on science are based on conjectures rather than empirical evidence.

The hypocrisy is... laughable on some NB users. One can't claim to have morals when said person has hate speech and a double standard mindset. Another can't picture religious people as aggressive and blind while the other side is no different. To the point where even one claims religion as fairy tales and no other reason while claiming religious people as narrow minded. Pots really go well with kettles. *shrug*

Yup, while it is impossible to be completely impartial many aren't even trying to be slightly so.

 

[Yubel]

Fair enough but again there are alot of mixed results:

For example in here:

You must be registered for see links

(I'm not sure if this is the same study as in one of my forbes links) it states that narcissistic leaders are indeed effecticve:

"it reveals self-centered CEOs who crave acclaim are more likely to keep their companies at the forefront of technological innovation."

"According to our findings, the more narcissistic the CEO, the more heavily and the earlier a firm invests in new technology considered novel and unproved. This is especially true during the “excitement” phase, when the narcissist believes a respected audience will note and applaud daring behavior."

"Narcissists, after all, are characterized by a sense of superiority, a desire to dominate their environments, restlessness, a lack of empathy and a strong need for attention. This is why they tend to attach a high probability of success to anything they do and why they are particularly drawn to actions and strategies that will earn acclaim for their audacity and bravado. They take risks that their more timid and less confident counterparts would shun. Narcissistic CEOs possess a near-unshakeable belief that their company, under their leadership, can make new technology work."

Again, as stated with leader emergence. Their desire to be at the forefront of new technological innovation is another manifestation of that. However it doesn't necessarily mention or attribute their success to narcissism.

Besides, this is how the study report ended.
"In some ways our work has only scratched the surface. It would be interesting to look beyond a company’s investment in discontinuous technology and examine the ultimate degree of success with a view to investigating whether CEO narcissism aids corporate adaptation and survival. What happens if a new technology flops or is quickly superseded? Would narcissistic CEOs invest so intensively and rapidly in less attention-grabbing revolutions? We may have broken important new ground, but many related issues remain to be addressed."

Ockham's razor: What can be done with fewer is done in vain with more.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Thanks for the correction lol

Christian scientists who study evolution? Nothing wrong with that, studying something does not mean you believe in it like a religion. Rather the blind faith in evolution(despite its many gaps and flaws) to the point where many regard it as an absolute truth is religion, this is why I call it 'evolutionism'. People should regard evolution as it is a hypothesis, there isn't any undeniable proof for it. Again there is nothing wrong with studying evolution whether one has a religion or not.

I would love science to be based on empirical evidence(as that is how it is supposed to be) but sadly many things that many claim to be based on science are based on conjectures rather than empirical evidence.

Such as?

 

[Gerkak]

Such as?

Such as black holes. We are told by the experts that millions of black holes have been discovered from the microscopic to ones that are 100's if not 1000's of solar masses. But when the so called experts are backed into a corner they admit it. That their 'discoveries' are based on computer models based on their equations in short nothing to do with actual observations or experiment.

They are the prophets, their journals and science magazines are their holy books used to spread their message.

The same can be said for its counterpart the big bang, evolution too. Science is not based on opinion, voting is not needed in science. Science is about finding out about things and proving those things, it isn't concerned about whether anyone likes the findings or not. If something cannot be proven by observation and experiment then it can never be scientific fact. Evolution, big bang, black holes etc can't be proven by observations and experiment therefore they aren't factual.

 

[Yubel]

1. People With Traits Of Psychopaths Actually Make The Best Leaders:

You must be registered for see links

2.Psychopathy and succes linked:

You must be registered for see links

Andy McNab and Oxford psychology professor Kevin Dutton reveal how acting like psychopaths could help us in work, life and love


3. Greatest U.S presidents were psychopaths:

You must be registered for see links

Political partisans delight in labeling opposition leaders as malign or even psychopathic — but it turns out that U.S. presidents with high levels of certain psychopathic traits may actually do better on the job, no matter what their party affiliation, according to new research.
The study, which was based on presidential performance ratings and personality assessments by hundreds of historians and biographers in several different surveys, found that one psychopathic characteristic in particular was linked to success in presidency: fearless dominance.

4.CEO as the most psychopath profession:

You must be registered for see links

"Being a CEO or in a position of true power requires certain skills and abilities that psychopaths exhibit with ease. Making objective, clinical decisions entirely void of emotion, planning meticulously and in great detail, being patient, restless and confident, having a need to be in control… are all characteristics that psychopaths and prominent leaders share.”"

"These findings tallied with other research linking psychopathy with CEO’s and leaders of the corporate world. Research has shown that in the general population, around 1% of people meet the classification for a psychopath, but among industry leaders the figure is 4 times higher."



This has always been pretty clear to me as psychology is something that interests me alot, but is it becoming clearer to you? Also as I said I spend a year in the army and believe me the best leaders showed pretty narcissistic qualities. This was clear in our training. The most emotional ones were ineffective and insecure.

You're keeping me busy. I've always been interested in psychology and I'm learning alot from these reports. However, I'll need to compare them with previous findings before I can address them properly. Do me a favor and stop nitpicking. Quote the negative findings too so I don't have to go through all to find them.

I also want to talk about how emotions drive decisions eventually.

 

[Hawker]

You're keeping me busy. I've always been interested in psychology and I'm learning alot from these reports. However, I'll need to compare them with previous findings before I can address them properly. Do me a favor and stop nitpicking. Quote the negative findings too so I don't have to go through all to find them.

I also want to talk about how emotions drive decisions eventually.

Well I do admit that there are negative sides to narcissistic or psychopath leader such as:

-straightforwardness
-un-able to be a team player
-too much self confidence/ arrogance/ risktaker
-big ego affecting the workplace morality etc.

So I won't be adressing them as I think they are self evident. Psychopaths and narcist are douches. But the titles of most of the articles and studies assert always something postive about those traits in relation to leading. So I think it's futile to adress the negative points as in the end the pros outweigh the cons as the titles suggest.

I'll be willing to talk about emotions driving decisions too if you'd make your point on how it is relevant for a good leader? The article you posted was quite arbitrary and didn't provide any data. The study from Damasio is like 15-20 pages long so I'm not reading it tonight and I do think that it being neuroscience more than psychology that it goes way over my head lol.

The wikipedia studies I linked you before clearly show that some emotions are very bad for decision making. But then again I don't know if this has got anything do with the neuroscientic point of view. It may be that we are talking about different things?

 

[Troyg39]

I said it because so that no one wouldn't get the picture that "90% of scientists are religious". And this beng NB that could have been possible.

Understood

Actually I didn't know that. Thanks for the info, and yeah I just checked that study myself, from 2009, and what you say is correct. But then again it's U.S so I'm not surprised, no offence.

No offense taken.

Bolded: I don't agree with this if you are implying atheist do that. Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. It just states that to which there isn't any proof of is not real. They do not say it couldn't be real, but based on the facts that we right now have at our disposal, it isn't real. It's the same with scientific process, get the proof and then claim something. So in a sense it is just the same as scientific process. But atheism is just the absence of belief and going by the facts. I'm not sure if I explained this correctly as english isn't my native language, but yeah.

@Bold: I think you explained yourself well and I do get what you're saying but that is still contradictory to the scientific process. Evidence and proof are not one and the same. A good scientist would say that based on current evidence, the possibility of a higher being is unlikely. They wouldn't draw the definitive conclusion that it simply isn't real, which is what you just said an atheist would do, rather they would say with relative certainty that the hypothesis is reliable.

The difference isn't in making a claim, but in labeling the claim as "fact". A fact is something that can be proven. There actually isn't a scientific method for testing the existence of deities. And since it isn't testable through a scientific method, which is how scientists form theories and conclusions, their existence, or lack thereof, can't be concluded as a fact. Our understanding of how the physical world works isn't definitive proof of there being no higher power, at least scientifically speaking.

You must be registered for see links

^^This is just something I thought you'd like reading. It's not really about this topic per se..it's just a good read on the relation between science, faith, atheism, etc