By the end of his life Philip K. Dick became convinced that all his novels are not fiction but truth — that they weren’t invented by him but rather transmitted through him by a benign entity trying to save humanity from doom — basically by Ubik itself. If what PKD thought was true, then he was a prophet-like figure who just shared his revelations. But instead of sermons, he did it through the form of science fiction novels.
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.
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.
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
I think the % of diagnosable sociopaths in western society is actually quite high. Thing is, not all of them are necessarily bad for the people around them. It may boil down to degree or place on a spectrum of sorts. Sociopathology covers narcissism, psychopathology, lack of empathy, hostility, and others you may know more about than I do (I don't have much of an education in psychology). High functioning sociopaths who also bear the more negative traits/types are the majority of people you seem to be describing. Again, though, I think a lot of them are effectively harmless.
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.
I was with you up to the very last sentence. Could you elaborate on the part about "hardline sociopaths" adopting pathological behaviors? I guess both parts, really. A definition of "hardline" and pathological behaviors.
The reason I ask is I don't want my own interpretation of either term to color the meaning. Hardline sociopaths *to me* would not necessarily exclude someone who's a raging psychopath with evil anti-social tendencies under the surface, but who knows how to fake empathy and generally fool people. This type of person, I've seen, can easily rise to the top of governments, corporations or just experimental control groups (ala the famous experiments we all had to read about in Psych 101). I guess that kind of leads directly into the question of pathological behaviors, which I would interpret as openly psychotic or brutally insane rather than the more subtle form of pathological behaviors we see from the ruling classes, especially in autocratic (such as the former USSR) or arch-capitalist puppet governments (Pinochet or even the present USA) bent on (or bent toward as in the case of regulatory capture or MIC capture of the USG) waging wars for resources, etc. and lying constantly to the 'governed' to attempt to mask said governments as beneficial or exemplary.
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
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.
Nice read. I haven't picked up any Philip K Dick since early college. A couple of things came to mind.
I don't think Ridley Scott wanted to (nor was he a capable enough director of the type of film we hypothesize) faithfully depict every aspect of PKD's world in "Blade Runner" but rather took it on in the same manner as Stanley Kubrick handled "The Shining" (an adaptation that Stephen King hated for a while). Both are excellent films taken on their own merits. Contrast that with "The Hobbit" trilogy where Peter Jackson (in a pure money grab) decided to turn a short book for kids into an epic three part series. He managed to capture a lot of the smaller details of the book (and Tolkien's greater world) and the movies actually suffered for it.
I think the correct spelling is Paul Verhoeven (you may have corrected it in the article, but it was misspelled in the email) and I loved "Total Recall" as well. He also did "Robocop" IIRC, and that, along with "Starship Troopers" (both pre-9/11!) have become pre-documentaries in the time since they were released. Sadly, the same holds true for Mike Judge's "Idiocracy."
Thanks for this reminder that maybe it's time to revisit some PKD.
To me it's the first techno-futuristic noir. At least among anything that could fall in that category and actually be well done. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I really liked BR2049 too. Now that one was atmospheric. Did Vangelis do that ST? I honestly forget.
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.
Did you happen to see/like "Dark City" from 1998? I'd call that probably the second of the major neo-noir films of the era.
Yeah, no doubt that BR wasn't intended to be a copy of the book, Evgenia acknowledged that pretty well. Completely removed any of the humorous elements for one major example.
Veering way off-topic, I had mentioned "The Shining" as another example of a director abandoning a significant portion of the source material and still coming away with a great film. As it happens, when I went to see "Hereditary" in the theater, they showed a clip of an interview with Ari Aster before the movie. In it, he said "The Shining" was an inspiration to him, and that he viewed it as a comedy. At that point I was already soured on "Hereditary" and it turned out I was right. It was overrated pablum, buoyed by a massive pre-release marketing campaign.
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.
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.
In Exegesis, PKD writes that Ubik aka God wrote Ubik and other books.
Okay. I couldn’t remember what Ubik was exactly. I remembered the Ubik spray cans, and couldn’t think beyond that.
Next do the character of Mercer in the novel. Fred Rogers?
Good article. I am going to read some PKD again. Since I live in SF too, it should be interesting.
I love this! (Not much to contribute otherwise)
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
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.)
(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]
I think the % of diagnosable sociopaths in western society is actually quite high. Thing is, not all of them are necessarily bad for the people around them. It may boil down to degree or place on a spectrum of sorts. Sociopathology covers narcissism, psychopathology, lack of empathy, hostility, and others you may know more about than I do (I don't have much of an education in psychology). High functioning sociopaths who also bear the more negative traits/types are the majority of people you seem to be describing. Again, though, I think a lot of them are effectively harmless.
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.
I was with you up to the very last sentence. Could you elaborate on the part about "hardline sociopaths" adopting pathological behaviors? I guess both parts, really. A definition of "hardline" and pathological behaviors.
The reason I ask is I don't want my own interpretation of either term to color the meaning. Hardline sociopaths *to me* would not necessarily exclude someone who's a raging psychopath with evil anti-social tendencies under the surface, but who knows how to fake empathy and generally fool people. This type of person, I've seen, can easily rise to the top of governments, corporations or just experimental control groups (ala the famous experiments we all had to read about in Psych 101). I guess that kind of leads directly into the question of pathological behaviors, which I would interpret as openly psychotic or brutally insane rather than the more subtle form of pathological behaviors we see from the ruling classes, especially in autocratic (such as the former USSR) or arch-capitalist puppet governments (Pinochet or even the present USA) bent on (or bent toward as in the case of regulatory capture or MIC capture of the USG) waging wars for resources, etc. and lying constantly to the 'governed' to attempt to mask said governments as beneficial or exemplary.
That was pretty good, thanks Evgenia, but the gratuitous smear at the end didn't add anything.
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
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.
Nice read. I haven't picked up any Philip K Dick since early college. A couple of things came to mind.
I don't think Ridley Scott wanted to (nor was he a capable enough director of the type of film we hypothesize) faithfully depict every aspect of PKD's world in "Blade Runner" but rather took it on in the same manner as Stanley Kubrick handled "The Shining" (an adaptation that Stephen King hated for a while). Both are excellent films taken on their own merits. Contrast that with "The Hobbit" trilogy where Peter Jackson (in a pure money grab) decided to turn a short book for kids into an epic three part series. He managed to capture a lot of the smaller details of the book (and Tolkien's greater world) and the movies actually suffered for it.
I think the correct spelling is Paul Verhoeven (you may have corrected it in the article, but it was misspelled in the email) and I loved "Total Recall" as well. He also did "Robocop" IIRC, and that, along with "Starship Troopers" (both pre-9/11!) have become pre-documentaries in the time since they were released. Sadly, the same holds true for Mike Judge's "Idiocracy."
Thanks for this reminder that maybe it's time to revisit some PKD.
I agree that Blade Runner is still a good movie, atmospheric.
To me it's the first techno-futuristic noir. At least among anything that could fall in that category and actually be well done. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I really liked BR2049 too. Now that one was atmospheric. Did Vangelis do that ST? I honestly forget.
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.
Did you happen to see/like "Dark City" from 1998? I'd call that probably the second of the major neo-noir films of the era.
Yeah, no doubt that BR wasn't intended to be a copy of the book, Evgenia acknowledged that pretty well. Completely removed any of the humorous elements for one major example.
Veering way off-topic, I had mentioned "The Shining" as another example of a director abandoning a significant portion of the source material and still coming away with a great film. As it happens, when I went to see "Hereditary" in the theater, they showed a clip of an interview with Ari Aster before the movie. In it, he said "The Shining" was an inspiration to him, and that he viewed it as a comedy. At that point I was already soured on "Hereditary" and it turned out I was right. It was overrated pablum, buoyed by a massive pre-release marketing campaign.