16 Comments
User's avatar
Katherine's avatar

Ooo. Also, check out the parent directory. Lots there. Full texts of books. This was a small group and they didn’t want his stuff to be owned or rather wanted it to be totally available to the public. One of the guys was part of the transcription process that produced the published version. Sorry. Kind of a pkd nerd. I don’t think this info is widely known though, so hopefully this interests someone.

Expand full comment
Katherine's avatar

This article was so good, I subscribed, again. Also, I loved the last podcast you guys put out. 2 things I love? I’m sold.

Oh, but, something to share if anyone is interested. Idk if anyone knew about or participated in the zebrapedia project of transcribing copies of pkd notebook pages from the original exegesis. All the parts that were not included in what got published. I think the project is now shut down. But I found this link in the old Google group which should interest fans.

https://mudcat.org/pkd/assets/foldertextfiles/

Also, pretty sure it is VALIS, not UBIK.

Expand full comment
Evgenia's avatar

In Exegesis, PKD writes that Ubik aka God wrote Ubik and other books.

Expand full comment
Katherine's avatar

Okay. I couldn’t remember what Ubik was exactly. I remembered the Ubik spray cans, and couldn’t think beyond that.

Expand full comment
Keith S Schuerholz's avatar

Next do the character of Mercer in the novel. Fred Rogers?

Expand full comment
Wendy LaRiviere's avatar

Good article. I am going to read some PKD again. Since I live in SF too, it should be interesting.

Expand full comment
Joshua Jamesy's avatar

I love this! (Not much to contribute otherwise)

Expand full comment
e.pierce's avatar

Some social science on predicting and stopping sociopaths:

Organisational sociopaths:

rarely challenged, often

promoted. Why?

Richard J. Pech and Bret W. Slade

Faculty of Law and Management, Graduate School of Management,

La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – Organisations sometimes select and promote the wrong individuals for managerial

positions. These individuals may be incompetent, they may be manipulators and bullies. They are not

the best people for the job and yet not only are they selected for positions of authority and

responsibility, they are sometimes promoted repeatedly until their kind populate the highest levels of

the organisational hierarchy. The purpose of this paper is to address this phenomenon by attempting

to explain why it occurs and why organisational members tolerate such destructive practices.

It concludes by proposing a cultural strategy to protect the organisation and its stakeholders from the

ambitious machinations of the organisational sociopath.

Design/methodology/approach – The authors develop an explanatory framework by attempting

to combine elements of the theory of memetics with structuration theory. Memetic theory helps to

analyse culture and communication of beliefs, ideas, and thoughts. Structuration theory can be used to identify motives and drives. A combination of these theoretical approaches can be used to identify the motives of organisational sociopaths. Such a tool is also useful for exploring the high level of

organisation tolerance for sociopathic managers.

Findings – Organisational tolerance and acceptance for sociopathic managerial behaviour appears to

be

[->] a consequence of cultural and structural complexity.

While this has been known for some time, few

authors have posited an adequate range of explanations and solutions to protect stakeholders and

prevent the sociopath from exploiting organisational weaknesses. Reduction of cultural and structural

complexity may provide a partial solution. Transparency, communication of strong ethical values,

promotion based on performance, directed cooperation, and rewards that reinforce high performing

and acceptable behaviour are all necessary to protect against individuals with sociopathic tendencies.

Originality/value – The authors provide a new cultural diagnostic tool by combining elements of

memetic theory with elements of structuration theory. The subsequent framework can be used to

protect organisations from becoming the unwitting victims of sociopaths seeking to realise and fulfil

their needs and ambitions through a managerial career path.

...

Introduction

Research has identified numerous causes and explanations for managerial bullying,

deceit, manipulation, and greed. This includes the existence of psychological traits

such as narcissism, where managers misuse the organisation as a vehicle for furthering

their own goals at the organisation’s expense, using tactics such as manipulation and

exploitation (Lasch, 1979). When such bullying behaviours occur without remorse, or

goals of self gratification are pursued without consideration for the well-being of

others, they can be termed as sociopathic behaviours. Surprisingly, and in apparent

contradiction to every rational management principle, Kets de Vries (2003) points out

(cont.)

---

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5680.htm

SBR

2,3

254

Society and Business Review

Vol. 2 No. 3, 2007

pp. 254-269

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1746-5680

DOI 10.1108/17465680710825451

Expand full comment
e.pierce's avatar

cont. excerpt

---

that sociopathic managers often rise rapidly through the organisational ranks into

positions of increasingly greater power.

Poor managerial performance has been explained with concepts such as the

Peter Principle, where people are promoted one or more levels beyond their optimum

level of competence (Peter and Hull, 1969). Performance shortfalls may be hidden by

using bullying tactics. McGregor’s (1960) Theory X and Y suggests that a manager’s

views of others may influence the manner in which people are managed. A negative

view (Theory X) could mould a managerial style focusing on lower-order behaviours

and thereby result in an overly authoritarian and task-centred management style. The

job may still be accomplished but the method may unnecessarily antagonise

intelligent, experienced, and qualified staff.

McClelland’s (1965, 1985) research on managerial motivation identified the need for

power as a strong motivator with potentially undesirable secondary effects. Yukl

(1994) points out that the most direct form of gratification for someone with a high need

for power is to exercise influence over the attitudes and behaviours of other people.

A need for power that verges into the pathological will drive the individual to seek

control, win at all costs, and eliminate rivals. The price of such behaviours can be

excessive in terms of unnecessary and costly mistakes, high staff turnover, low levels

of confidence, and falling morale. Adams’ (1963) equity theory suggests that people

may withhold commitment if they perceive inequities in rewards or recognition, thus

demonstrating the impact that comparative perceptions may have on performance

outputs. Bullying behaviours and inequitable treatment by managers do not go

unnoticed by staff. Such “bad” managerial behaviour incurs a significant cost to the

organisation through withdrawal of effort and energy.

These only represent a few explanations for poor performance and managerial

shortcomings. Unnecessary and preventable poor managerial decisions continue to be

made every day, and this may be because the wrong people are promoted into positions

of authority and responsibility. Employees and stakeholders suffer because of the

twisted machinations or greed of a few (Pech and Durden, 2004). Rather than filtering

out such individuals and their destructive tendencies, Giblin (1981) suggests that the

culture in the modern organisation actually rewards and reinforces such behaviours.

Giblin (1981) identifies the increasingly complex nature of the corporate world as

the main catalyst for reinforcing pathological behaviours in the organisational context.

Research by authors such as Giblin (1981), Kets de Vries and Miller (1984), and Jones

et al. (2004) suggests that the

[->] organisational culture actually tolerates and in many

ways favours manipulative, egotistical, and self-centred managerial behaviour.

Donald

(2002, p. 320) argues that we are “married to culture and fated to play out its algorithm

in our conscious acts”.

Giblin (1981) recommends a number of approaches to solve what he terms as the

problem of bureaupathology, which includes developing a reward system that

reinforces task performance rather than manipulative behaviours, and a simplification

of the organisational structure, processes and staffing levels to remove performance

obstacles. Two decades after Giblin disseminated his advice; managerial

decision-making still suffers from unhealthy symptoms due to over-complexity,

selfishness, and reward systems that continue to encourage narcissistic behaviours

(McFarlin and Sweeney, 2000). Warnings by authors such as Giblin (1981) and Kets de

Vries and Miller (1984) that cultural reinforcement and structural complexity are

...

(cont.)

Expand full comment
e.pierce's avatar

(last, cont. excerpt)

determining factors that promulgate pathological managerial behaviours have either

not been taken seriously, or the necessary means for eradicating undesirable

behaviours from our organisations are yet to be discovered. Further, investigation into

organisational pathology is therefore warranted.

[end intro]

Diagnosing culture and motivation through the frameworks of memetics

and structuration

Poor decision behaviours can be diagnosed from many positions including

psychological, philosophical, sociological, etc. The following is an attempt to integrate

elements of the theory ofmemetics with elements of structuration theory in an attempt to

add to our understanding of organisational behaviour from a cultural position. The

focus for discussion is specifically on the advancement of some types of personalities

that are least suited for managerial roles, largely because their motivations may be in

direct conflict with the needs and goals of the organisation. Problems with the

organisational culture have been given as one explanation for this phenomenon.

Memetics can be viewed as the study of messages (whether explicit or implicit) that

are transmitted through acts of mimicking behaviour within an organisation’s culture.

Memes can be viewed as coded, replicable and transmittable units of information that

travel from mind to mind (Dawkins, 1998, p. 302). Pech and Slade (2005) describe the

concept of “toxic memes” or memes that are displayed in destructive, undesirable, or

illegal behaviours. Memetics provides a useful framework for cultural diagnosis –

particularly when a culture may contain toxic elements.

Giddens’ (1981) structuration theory is sometimes viewed as being highly

theoretical and complex, with few authors appearing to make the transition between

theory and application. Structuration theory suggests that individuals take action in

order to achieve control over their lives and “go on thus to alter the world” (Cassell,

1990, p. 22). Such efforts may in turn manifest themselves through physical action. An

adaptation of structuration theory may be used to explain the mind and motivations of

people with pathological power needs who are driven to seek positional power through

the vehicle of the organisation’s cultural Achilles’ heel. These are the people who

advance themselves through shameless self promotion, manipulations, and through

their ingenious cover-ups of mistakes and inadequacies.

Theories of memetics and structuration have been in existence for several decades.

An amalgam of these two theories may increase our understanding of culture,

particularly where a culture appears to encourage non-rational decision-making and

narcissistic behaviours

...

[end excerpt]

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Sep 1, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
e.pierce's avatar

my guess is that sociopathy isn't just a random genetic aberration, there were unusual circumstances in human history when a person lacking empathy (relatively unconcerned about how society saw them) was able to transcend social rules and lead a kinship group or tribe away from a weak tradition toward survival.

abandoning a failing water hole in an arid region to make a high risk migration to a new water hole comes to mind, as well as brutal hunts and ward where it probably took a sociopathic/psychopathic leader to order some people to make the ultimate sacrifice for the survival of the larger tribe.

in so called civilized society hardline sociopaths don't have any legitimate role, so they adopt pathological behaviors.

Expand full comment
e.pierce's avatar

That was pretty good, thanks Evgenia, but the gratuitous smear at the end didn't add anything.

Expand full comment
Benjamin Ethan Tinker's avatar

For the ultimate Bay Area bummer Dickian vibes, check out his Dr. Bloodmoney, I had to put it down because it was too familiar in its hapless Market Street characters as it’s Marin aging hippies in their dilapidated, moss & mold homes… never mind the encroaching technofeudalists… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Bloodmoney,_or_How_We_Got_Along_After_the_Bomb

Expand full comment
Robert Monks's avatar

a very interesting analysis. Even though I liked the Blade Runner movie its an interesting point that Ridley Scott overlooked the dark humour, at times satire which is part of PDK. yes, valid point. I like the minor work: Confessions of a crap artist. the narrator who has pscyhological problems is less threatening and dangerous than his acquisitive sister and brother in law, the ones who want to protect him. technology and capitalism seem intertwined as you need coins etc.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Sep 1, 2022Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Robert Monks's avatar

I agree that Blade Runner is still a good movie, atmospheric.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Sep 3, 2022Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Robert Monks's avatar

that's a good point. It does have a futuristic noir aspect to it. I think Ridley Scott adapted it, I didn't think it was supposed to be a direct copy of the book. However, adding to it can it an interesting noir edge to it.

Expand full comment