Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

RenaissanceBear t1_iwzqiw4 wrote

Zero chance I ever let an employer have access to my brain data.

220

twasjc t1_ix1r6gr wrote

Their AIs already have access to it whether you know it or not. Remote Neural monitoring has exists since the 80s.

−25

stage_directions t1_ix1vefp wrote

I’m a neurophysiologist. Point me at your evidence and I’ll tell you if it’s legit.

24

twasjc t1_ix1wtu0 wrote

https://patents.google.com/patent/US3951134A/en

​

I work with it every day. It's more than legit

−21

stage_directions t1_ix26n2s wrote

No, you don't. And no, it isn't.

But let's play.

What's your noise floor in the gamma band at the finest spatial resolution you can achieve, and what is that resolution?

What is the most prominent source of noise in the data you collect?

Typically, to achieve measurable retransmission of RF waves you need to get a lot of particles spin-aligned, otherwise the fields generated by their randomly distributed spins cancel each other out. How do you overcome this without imposing an incredibly strong field? Typically the field required is strong enough to rip incompatible implants straight out of the body, and generating it requires the use of superconductors - and neither of these things would likely go unnoticed by those being measured.

...I've just got so many questions for you, but will leave you these three to see if you can/will actually play ball.

28

snoo135337842 t1_ix2gbb7 wrote

This dude is likely schizophrenic. He's not going to be able to recognize he's wrong since it's a delusion. Best to just let it be, there's not much you can do from here. Thanks for sharing your insights though

11

Mapafius t1_ix8v0n3 wrote

Perhaps remote neural monitoring is sci-fi thing but I suppose big tech companies use insights and methodologies from neural sciences in their analysis of human behavior based on other types of monitoring.

1

glowcubr t1_ix20btq wrote

Is this in widespread use?

0

NihiliSloth t1_iwzp1de wrote

Change the words “happier and more productive” with the words “complacent and more robotic”.

At some point, companies have to realize people are not machines and they aren’t made to work 12 hours a day 5 days a week.

It’s proven that in countries where the work week is 35 hours or less a week, people are happier. And it’s because they can actually live their lives. They have time to take care of themselves physically and emotionally. They have time to spend with family. They have time to do hobbies. They have time to connect with nature. They have time to sleep.

With the amount of time people are expected to work in the US, people barely have time to sleep before they have to go right back to work. It’s a recipe for burnout. It’s a recipe for depression and hopelessness.

Fuck this stupid brain scanning bullshit. If you want people to be more happy and productive, give them a reason to be more happy and productive. Create a healthy work environment. Pay them well. Give them incentives. Don’t make them work 60+ hours a week. Cut that time in half. Let them live their lives while also having a job. Don’t make them pick a job over their lives.

Fuck capitalism being the most important thing to most people. News flash, It’s not the most important thing.

161

kerouac666 t1_iwzvsco wrote

“Fitter, happier and more productive/a pig/in a cage/on antibiotics” as unemotionally read by an artificial voice are literally the lyrics/song of Radiohead’s “Fitter Happier” on OK Computer meant to represent the dystopian isolation of ‘97 life. We got all the bad cyberpunk stuff, but none of the cool fun stuff. Employers can track our brain patterns for max efficiency, but we have no flying cars. Lame.

31

UntakenAccountName t1_iwzyzc8 wrote

The flying car is for the employer exploiting your labor and making all the money off of you. Duh.

15

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_iwzrfia wrote

Indeed, human beings are not machines and never will be, which is precisely why it’s a moral imperative to replace human labour with robot labour wherever possible.

19

DaPretzelBoi t1_iwzw7z7 wrote

We need systems in place to allow people to get by fine without jobs before we get too far into automating them and reduce the number of jobs available. Capitalists are vehemently opposed to such an idea.

7

kraemahz t1_ix066nb wrote

We do need those things, they likely will not happen without it being bad for quite a while to the point that those resisting it have no choice.

2

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_ix0fn0v wrote

Bingo. A short period of suffering is necessary to compel the people to demand UBI and not take no for an answer.

1

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_ix0fk8r wrote

Yes, it’s called UBI, which would follow a steep loss of jobs because the people would demand it, whether by the ballot, wallet, or bullet. This would be paid for by taxing automation.

1

Artanthos t1_ix26fs0 wrote

Or people will be shoveled into barracks style dormitories, fed very basic meals in cafeterias, and any resistance will be summarily put down by much better armed police.

1

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_ix27hlc wrote

At that point why not just execute 90% of humans?

1

Artanthos t1_ix7p8eb wrote

People like to believe they are good.

With the solution above, the wealthy will be able to legitimately state that they provided food, clothing, and shelter to the unemployed masses.

It just won’t be what you are asking for. It will also be far better than the conditions experienced by the poor in Victorian England, where the wealthy thought they were doing good by helping the poor and the orphans.

1

NihiliSloth t1_ix0vrp7 wrote

But will we still rely heavily on money and capitalism being put above everything else? Because that’ll take away a lot of jobs people need in order to eat and keep a roof over their heads. Will everything still be so expensive if human labor is replaced by robots? Cause we could knock out most of the workforce with retail, warehouse, and food industries. Robots can do all of those jobs. But what happens to the people who lose their jobs? Or will money be a non issue? Will people be taught different skills? Will other jobs be more desirable? Will there be enough of those jobs? Or will society have to be restructured and people will have to live a different kind of life?

3

YeetThePig t1_ix109g8 wrote

In all likelihood, we’re going to cling to capitalism because the wealthy and powerful demand it, decay into full-blown fascism propped up by automation and resource wars, mass extermination of the poor and unemployed where possible (through either violence or willful neglect), and when that inevitably no longer remains feasible, total collapse of society. Should our species and a sufficient amount of technology survive that, there’s definitely a slim chance at a civilized AI-enabled humanity to emerge from the ashes.

3

NihiliSloth t1_ix10h5a wrote

Yeah and that’s the problem. Fuck capitalism.

3

YeetThePig t1_ix11oh5 wrote

Yeah, I would concur that that would be the rational response. Unfortunately, we’re not a rational species to begin with, and the political and economic power are all concentrated in the hands of particularly irrational sociopaths. So as a result, humanity gets to witness what happens when the unstoppable force of automation-driven capitalism meets the immovable object of human needs.

3

NihiliSloth t1_ix149vn wrote

Yeah someone else on this thread questioned why I think CEO’s and other extremely wealthy people are psychopaths. It’s because they are. People don’t obtain that amount of money and power by being nice and giving to people. They obtain it because they take what they want, regardless if they hurt people or not. And oftentimes it does involve hurting people. They simply do not care. They only stop when someone else keeps them in check due to illegal activity. But some people have enough wealth and power they can just pay their way out of situations and they are exempt from the law.

People like the person questioning me (who think the workings of large corporations is completely okay) will never get it because they are a part of the problem. They lack sympathy and empathy for what’s really transpiring. They fail to realize that humans are meant to work together, not against each other. And when we do work against each other, in the end, it will only lead to failure. History repeats itself time and time again. People refuse to learn.

4

YeetThePig t1_ix17j80 wrote

Yep.

“Great Filter, dead ahead, cap’n!” “Excellent! Hold course and accelerate to flanking speed!”

1

Artanthos t1_ix26we0 wrote

Total collapse of society is unlikely.

If society eliminates most of the lower and mid classes while maintaining production it would create abundance for the upper classes.

It would suck to be a part of society that is no longer needed, but it will be the upper classes that write the history books.

1

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_ix1dk5k wrote

UBI for 90%, intellectual jobs for 10%.

2

NihiliSloth t1_ix1eday wrote

Right. But where does that leave the 90% of people who are unemployed? What does the world look like? I’m all for using robots for everything as long as it doesn’t give the wealthy more power and it doesn’t screw everyone else over.

We would need complete restructuring of our societies. One that is not based on capitalism. Do you think the wealthy will seriously want to let go of that power?

1

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_ix1hpuy wrote

Well, the 90% unemployed would just receive that UBI money and live their lives as they see fit, I suppose.

1

Z3r0sama2017 t1_ix0yn2v wrote

Thats what the wealthy think too. Throw us on the junk heap and let the useless mouths die off so they can get whatever small bits of resources we had managed to hodl.

For them the momentary feeling of satisfaction looking down on us will be immediately crushed by their insatiable greed.

1

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_ix1dsar wrote

Getting rid of the folks who consume their products doesn’t sound very intuitive to me…

1

Z3r0sama2017 t1_ix2s07z wrote

They don't need consumers. They will have the all resources and AI/robotic workers will do the work while they live in paradise.

By getting rid of consumers they remove an unneccessary step. Money is unneccessary if no goods are being exchanged.

1

Lorion97 t1_ix030i0 wrote

Fuck just being more productive, life is not about work and I wish everyone would stop treating happiness as something we can forgo for the sake of "productivity".

7

NihiliSloth t1_ix04l1p wrote

Agreed 100%

Happiness to me is being without stress and being able to go and do what I want with my family. It’s eating good food, drinking coffee, taking a hike, and smoking a joint. Being happy to me, is belting my favorite songs and getting lost in the emotion and rhythm of music. Happiness is watching my little one grow as well as my plants. Happiness is petting my cat. Happiness is so many things.

Happiness directly relates to what can benefit me. Even being productive for myself and achieving goals I set for myself make me happy.

Being productive and making money for a company while they barely pay a living wage and treat their employees like replaceable cogs in a machine does not in any way correlate to happiness. It correlates to never ending stress and suffering.

8

Lorion97 t1_ix1tl1e wrote

What I was more insinuating was that there's a hyper fixation on productivity and it feels incredibly hollow when bosses go "I'm going to help make my workers happy for my benefit."

Which I get as a boss is what you want, more production for more profits. But it feels incredibly manipulative and alienating. Because unless you being happy makes you more productive those changes to make you happier for the short time you are here on Earth won't be made.

Like you can't just have an increase of happiness without an increase of productivity. Productivity comes first always regardless of emotional wellbeing. Emotional wellbeing is just a luxury.

1

NihiliSloth t1_ix1viot wrote

Well yeah, we are programmed to frown upon laziness. If people aren’t being productive, they are seen as lazy. And we can’t have that, now can we? There are societal standards for a reason. It’s to make the wealthy, wealthier.

2

KDamage t1_ix3da1j wrote

We are really slowly turning into a transhumanist society. We're still at the infant step where tech is not yet merged with flesh, but smartphones and computers still make a huge part of our daily routines and decisions all day. On some extent, I've been imagining such a scenario for a long time where the tech-flesh barrier would break, like a lot of anticipation romancers wrote in the past.

And while my own conclusion would be to stay on the "non-augmented" side, I have a hard time imagining a world where a majority of people would not go transhumanism.

A simple example : a job position is open for a prestigious, very well paid job, requiring a neural implant for extended knowledge and efficiency. Something where the non-augmented could clearly not compete. Would there be absolutely zero candidates ? I think not. Then the tech become more and more mainstream, with more and more people adopting it as they see it only gives them an advantage over others and better wages.

I'm pretty confident there will be a point in time, and not that far in the future, where the well-known scenario from anticipation writers depicting a societal conflict between augmented and non-augmented will be a reality.

A brain scan to monitor and adjust a person for better mood, better efficiency, is not that very different from the above. From the article the narrative sounds horrifying because it's an employer decision, but what about the moment where it's a candidate decision.

1

NihiliSloth t1_ix3efol wrote

I’m just not interested in any of it.

I’m fine with medical advances. Im fine with new medications. I’m fine with vaccines. Im fine with new diagnostic devices. I’m fine with surgeries that improve quality of life. But that sort of advancement is for the betterment of humanity, not boost productivity in a work environment.

I’m not okay with technology that only furthers the advancement of the machine. We are not robots. We should not expected to perform like them. Giving our bodies ignorantly to people just for the sake of better wages will surely backfire. People will be exploited even further than they are now. And that tech that’s used now may make people content, but I doubt it’ll have the same lasting affects later on down the road. All I see is exploitation and chaos building up.

2

KDamage t1_ix3euni wrote

I indeed completely agree. Everything is already written in novels, some of them being not romanticized but simple societal evolving calculations and predictions, and I've yet to see one that did not depict exactly what you mentionned. Some people will be aware of the dangers you mentionned, but I'm pretty sure a lot will not, or will prefer to ignore it because "better pay". Just like some in the present times prefer to ignore burnout syndrome.

1

MustLoveAllCats t1_ix27yb3 wrote

> At some point, companies have to realize people are not machines and they aren’t made to work 12 hours a day 5 days a week.

Why? Why do they have to realize that? They're doing just fine working the common people to death, and the common people are stupid enough to vote in politicians like Doug Ford and Ron DeSantis who play for these companies.

−1

BotJunkie OP t1_iwzqoxb wrote

If you read the article, in the security screening application, workers (at least some workers) preferred using the EEG system to screening bags manually. And if you can screen more bags in less time that way, isn't it better for everyone? Even if it doesn't result in fewer working hours because employers are exploitative either way, it's fewer working hours doing a mindless, repetitive task.

−10

RisingPhoenix5 t1_iwzvh1a wrote

Define better for everyone? Just because they can do the job faster doesn't make it better, unless you're telling me I get paid the same amount for half the work. If I'm still at work, my employer will find busy work for me to do. Mostly more repetitive mindless tasks. From what I see, this is only beneficial to employers.

Oh, I see my office staff is getting burnt out? Good. Now I know to start looking for replacements. Sure, the concept is neat in theory, but efficiency isn't happiness.

This last bit is just me rambling, but I recall a certain Galactic Empire using technology that used tech for a similar purpose... https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/AJ%5E6_cyborg_construct

9

MrThird312 t1_ix0gaye wrote

Damn.. anything but paying a living wage and giving good benefits

36

26_Charlie t1_ix28yof wrote

I read something the other day - "they've beaten us down so much we can't even get a living wage, much less a thriving wage."

6

MyBallsAreOnFir3 t1_ix334bu wrote

We live under a system in which your boss earns more and more while you earn less and less. And we've decided that the system is perfect. So obviously the problem must be somewhere else.

0

Evolutionary_Beasty t1_ix00vl8 wrote

Fitter happier More productive Comfortable Not drinking too much Regular exercise at the gym (3 days a week) Getting on better with your associate employee contemporaries At ease Eating well (no more microwave dinners and saturated fats) A patient, better driver A safer car (baby smiling in back seat) Sleeping well (no bad dreams) No paranoia…

Where Thom Yorke at right now lol

35

[deleted] t1_ix2x5ih wrote

...isn’t the beginning of this from a RADIOHEAD SONG?? I am a dieHARD fan and I just need you to admit it🤣

3

et133et t1_ix3ns03 wrote

Die hard fan and doesn't know the first two words are the name of the song.

3

[deleted] t1_ix3x1k4 wrote

SCREAM....I don’t know sarcasm without screaming I don’t know sarcasm. 🙄

How heavy are the testes of Yorke on your chin mate???

Relax sweetheart

1

et133et t1_ix449ao wrote

Damn dude let me get some of those drugs you're using.

1

[deleted] t1_ix4c42m wrote

Imagine being a shady under someone else’s shit, and then further lifting up your dress to show everyone your heels are dug into the ground??

Make it make sense....

Just say that you are one of those incels, that can’t take a joke, can’t understand sarcasm and your lack of real relationships is clouding your small brain...

1

[deleted] t1_iwzwjvt wrote

just make people not forced to work just to survive for mostly owner's gain and some worker promotion/bonus at the cost of everyone else

motivation comes from within and current system is just forcing most workers to ask themselves: do you want to be rich or no

well unfortunately(or fortunately) not everyone is happy when they have money for themselves when cost is other people and throwing away environment
yes people get manipulated with propaganda ads etc which is already not in their best interest no one can deny that and call this external device good

following authority's order made any ordinary person to torture people on other side for no reason and this test was famously done long ago...now we're gonna make a device so they don't feel guilt? how much are we going to allow society as harsh place to exist before it stops? no, give people back the autonomy

15

random_user_number_5 t1_iwzxs7j wrote

The lengths that a company will go to not to pay a living wage.

15

Possum_Gully t1_iwzz8bu wrote

Ah yes, man-made horrors beyond our comprehension... Wait until someone asks their employees to use that and everyone walks out putting the business under in a record amount of time.

14

CauliflowerPutrid282 t1_ix01wh5 wrote

Without even reading the article, I think I'm happier if my employer is not scanning my brain.

14

045675327 t1_ix00rh2 wrote

/r/Futurology or /r/aboringdystopia fun game to play at home kids.

13

Meteor_VII t1_ix0h0qs wrote

Good news everyone! Since the brain scans revealed you are all depressed and borderline suicidal, we've begun terminating underperforming employees permanently. According to the data most of you believe you would be better off dead anyway.

12

ToolTime100 t1_ix08ta5 wrote

every dystopian view of the future is coming to fruition

8

grislebeard t1_ix2bqo9 wrote

That’s because people refuse to realize the root of the problem: authoritarian capital

3

Trips-Over-Tail t1_ix0xjgm wrote

I would sooner eat my employer's shrivelled brain than let him manipulate mine.

^(a part of me longs to feed in this way)

5

NoDontDoThatCanada t1_iwzuct5 wrote

I'll eave them some time. Pay enough that one person can have an apartment, give benefits so heath care isn't breaking people's bank, keep 40 hrs/week schedule so they have time for themselves, stop mandatory pep rallies that don't make people like your garbage job. No scan needed.

4

TheRealCaptainZoro t1_ix01u6i wrote

Lower that 40 to 30-35 scientific studies show humans are only truly productive about 30 hours a week

7

NoDontDoThatCanada t1_ix063t2 wrote

And in reality a lot of people can do 40 worth in 8 thanks to computers and technology but they want 65 and pay for only for 40.

2

Slodin t1_ix19nc6 wrote

less work time

more payout and benifits

there, that's how you make employees happier without paying some big bucks to get scanning results.

3

[deleted] t1_ix004qu wrote

So this is both extremely disappointing and extremely cool.

If there were some magic that could improve my efficiency and help identify stress so my employer will be responsive to my needs, I would want that.

But if I look at it from the employers point of view it’s also horrifyingly dystopian.

I guess the only way this could really be ethically applied is if you could guarantee that the employee was among the choice for themselves. And there are child slaves getting chemical burns from scrubbing slaughterhouse kill floors overnight in Minnesota, so I’m pretty sure we aren’t there yet as a society.

2

Spacedude2187 t1_ix2pabb wrote

The answers will be the complete opposite of what makes a company profits. It’s basically going to be less days working, more staff, more pay, more vacation and so on… you don’t need a brain scanner for it.

Basically could get all those answers by asking the employees lol, the employers are of course constantly going against it and treating it like some “mistery” it’s ridiculous

2

FuturologyBot t1_iwzrcud wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/BotJunkie:

EEG-based systems that can help workers be 10x more productive at some image-recognition tasks, or that can provide real-time feedback on stress and focus to both employees and their managers, are now in pilot projects around the world. But whether or not it's ethical to directly monitor worker's brains is still an open question.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yzft16/workplace_brain_scanning_to_make_employees/iwzp0jt/

1

HSdoc t1_iwzw7de wrote

Watch the show Severance, that's where we are heading.

1

Creative-Ad-3222 t1_iwzy55p wrote

Oh look, a more sophisticated version of the stress measuring device from The I.T. Crowd.

1

Ofabulous t1_ix0kdph wrote

Title should be “workplace brain scanning to make employees more productive. And, uh… happier, sure let’s go with that”

1

ConfirmedCynic t1_ix0p5ya wrote

So what would the consequences of this be? Anyone who is depressed becomes unemployable for impacting the happiness quota?

1

unenlightenedgoblin t1_ix0tm4o wrote

If my employer announced they were doing this it would be my supervillain origin story

1

kindofastoryteller t1_ix0us5r wrote

"Why is your brain so tense? Relax buddy. We are like a family here."

1

Lesdeth t1_ix13t0l wrote

How about less hours and more pay so that life can actually be enjoyed by most people? There, no longer need a new way to make your slave more productive.

1

UncommonHouseSpider t1_ix1ly89 wrote

We don't need some drug or a fucking pizza party and pinball. We need a better work life balance and an equitable wage. It's not rocket science, quit trying to beat around the bush.

1

Divallo t1_ix1tlab wrote

What use is the brain scan if they never even try or care about the happiness of their employees?

Yeah sure that's what the brain scans are for I wasn't born yesterday. I can smell the dystopian horror from a mile off.

1

usriusclark t1_ix25rkx wrote

Imaging how much happier workers would be if they were paid a fair wage? What if instead of investing in this technology, companies just paid their workers?

1

Specialist-Lion-8135 t1_ix29lbs wrote

Money makes people productive and benefits make them happy. No agency with fancy equipment needed.

It’s patently unethical to invade the privacy of someone’s brain to manipulate them into complacency.

IMO, to order or emotionally blackmail someone to acquiesce to any mind alteration to benefit from the use of their body is rape, full stop.

1

D-redditAvenger t1_ix2bb59 wrote

Why they just lobotomize all of us, bet work would be really happy then. /s

1

Aluggo t1_ix2pd9h wrote

So headspace didn’t work out?

Maybe they just want the data to train the AI?

1

Bleusilences t1_ix31d3a wrote

Here I would save you time and money:

better pay

less hour worked

competent management

There problem solved, you give me this I'll work for you until I get bored and need more challenges

So point 4: challenges when I am ready.

1

Proof_Assistance_824 t1_ix3wqih wrote

If anyone is interested in getting into this space, let me know. I've been working with QEEG for several years and have a few prototype ideas

1

LegendaryDraft t1_iwzzy5c wrote

Wow, once this tech begins mainstream use companies are going to realize that workers had a real reason to be miserable.

−1

NihiliSloth t1_ix00s5p wrote

They already know workers have a real reason to be miserable. They just don’t care.

The CEO’s and the other people within the companies who profit off of the workers don’t care now and they won’t care once it’s mainstream. All they care about is how much more money they can make. That’s why people in those positions are so successful and rich. They are psychopaths. They know how to manipulate everyone else into getting what they want. They don’t stop until someone makes them. And if someone makes them stop, it’s usually because they have done something illegal with the companies’ money.

4

Key_Abbreviations658 t1_ix0aacz wrote

But why would they care, why is that an expectation?

1

NihiliSloth t1_ix0agke wrote

I never said it was an expectation. I was replying to their comment “wow, once this tech begins mainstream use companies are going to realize that workers had a real reason to be miserable.”

My point being, they already know. It’s not news. They don’t care.

1

Key_Abbreviations658 t1_ix0bs9y wrote

But why would not caring make somebody a psychopath?

0

NihiliSloth t1_ix0cmc9 wrote

Psychopaths only care about themselves. They don’t care about who they step on or hurt to get what they want. People who are considered very wealthy and people who are at the head of companies like CEO’s actually do a lot of messed up things to get to those positions. They don’t get those positions being nice and giving to employees. They get there by pushing people to their limits, making budget cuts, firing people, and on top of that, they take away from employees to line their pockets. They will cut funding from important programs just so they can make more.

How is that not being a psychopath? If they cared about their employees and their well-being, don’t you think they would push for their rights, benefits, and fair wages instead of taking them away?

1

Key_Abbreviations658 t1_ix0evbn wrote

There are billions of people in this world that I don’t really care about, many employees do not give a shit about their ceo and many ceos do not care about employees the relationship is strictly transactional in those cases.

0

CodingLazily t1_ix1zg4e wrote

Seems like poor wording or definitions. Psychopaths in this instance are people who manipulate society and it's members to selfish ends. You can have transactions and be a reasonable person. You could even negotiate the terms of the transaction to decide the value. But when your whole thing is "How can I convince everyone who works for me to give up their rights to restroom breaks and union representation" you become a manipulative prick and a burden on healthy society. You're not negotiating, you're actively trying to brainwash people and mess with their emotions. It's easy to control people who need the work, after all. "Oh, your family is out of a home if you get laid off? Sounds like the solution is that you need to increase productivity so that doesn't happen." That's pretty close to psychopathic rationale. Again, it's manipulation, not negotiation. It's taking advantage of rather than coming to an agreement. And the fact that upper management will literally never see the peons they employ makes it that much easier to disconnect from humanity.

It's not an expectation that they care how good your life is going, but I think it should be reasonable to expect that they don't actively try to ruin it.

I think that's the point he's trying to make anyways. I don't like being so pessimistic myself.

1

Key_Abbreviations658 t1_ix2ami2 wrote

i genuinely don't know why i am continuing this as i don't care for any of these people all that much but i guess stopping now would be weird but in my opinion what you described was not trying to ruin lives but trying to just squeeze as much productivity out of the agreement as possible it is unfortunate that in many cases the reality's of employment make responding difficult but this is an unfortunate world, the only responses that i can think of are unions or seeking a job elsewhere but both are easier said than done and both don't always work out.

0

MINIMAN10001 t1_ix5lzge wrote

>According a study dating back to 2010, there were at least three times as many psychopaths in executive or CEO roles than in the overall population. But more recent data found it’s now a much higher figure: 20 percent.

Source

Because studies are showing upwards of 20x the general population rate of psychopaths in the position of CEOs on an upwards trend.

1

Key_Abbreviations658 t1_ix6glov wrote

That’s about 1 in 5 on the very highest end and 3 out of a hundred for the initial estimate you gave.

1

BotJunkie OP t1_iwzp0jt wrote

EEG-based systems that can help workers be 10x more productive at some image-recognition tasks, or that can provide real-time feedback on stress and focus to both employees and their managers, are now in pilot projects around the world. But whether or not it's ethical to directly monitor worker's brains is still an open question.

−4

Tgk230987 t1_ix00vr5 wrote

Idk bout an open question, it’s pretty cleary ethically wrong. But sure freako

9