Some may achieve, others may applaud. Yet, there is also a third category, the "me-too" people. You may call them simply jealous, but it is worse. It is a greediness, in claiming what they simply cannot, and maybe even not willing to do what they claim.
On this page, we will discuss about the "me-too" people and their oddities. The usual problem is that of centralizing the power, and expecting that the position-holders are "ideal." But the "me-too" people also do want to hold such centralized positions, even when they cannot do the job; And even when such abusive hierarchies do not exist, the "me-too" people may lobby to establish them. (I offer otherwise.)
The "me-too"-ness, is a tension-concept. To pronounce it with a "me" in it, with your own lips, may feel uneasy, sometimes. It may feel the same (blame), as if someone points his/her finger at you, when he/she is uttering a bad-word. But that is the necessary tension with that concept! In a world where "me-too" people exist, they do want to grab [a share of, and/or a full control of] what you own. This is only possible, if they blame/attack you, (or, the people, in general) as either
In any area, there may exist, the wonder-people, who are the most-rewarded. Rarely, any of the wonder-people may achieve in more than a few areas, though - in a limited time of living. Therefore, even if, in theory, there were people who would win any reward, in the real world, other people may achieve, and get rewarded, too. Fine.
Then again, some people may not be always satisfied with what they already own or can, either because of
For example, there are professors. A student may like their respectability, and material opportunities - getting some of the best positions in the society, without much of a risk, such as bankruptcy, etc. But it is (supposed to be!) a lot of productivity, too. The research, and the on-going integration of new topics to the lecture material in an understandable manner may take some care and work.
But the "me-too" personality, as usually observed, believes otherwise. He/she begins with a projection in his mind, and stops there. Period. The projection is about imagining oneself as "a professor" - with "social ties" here and there. If coupled with low-ethics, then a plagiarism, and/or some corrupt behavior/organization to crush dissent, may be "only some steps" in his/her "path to success."
The core of the label "false-god" comes from the observations of such person(s) imposing themselves upon others, and the sacrifices and the self-denials expected from the obeying people. Then, it comes only a re-iteration of the word false, when those self-important person(s) also turn out to be incapable.
The observed incapability may be exactly real, or the person(s) maybe deliberately holding back services, when a fraction of the resources they are consuming would suffice to pay for it.
A "joking"-tip-of-tyranny, is a usual trade mark. Either the position-holding "important" person or some satellite, "tips" (or, maybe shouts) the oppressive-possibilities against the objectors. That is, the oppressive person(s) expect/manipulate you to be grateful because of not being hurt "some extra way," and even be attached and subordinated, in gratitude to the smile, when you were granted one.
Of course, a cheap-"humane"ity cannot erase the whole process of wrongdoings. To buy a bagel, and to chat with the sales-boy, while the media is watching; or, to dump some extraneous, presumably "personal sounding" commentary is no good. Contrast the scale of oppression versus "humane"ity, will you?
Here is a list of what a "me-too" person may live and fight for. I put the name, as a destination-address ("me-too"), but the source addressing (i.e., "I too") is also within context, in many of such issues. When a rigid hierarchy and a resulting plunder does not already exist, a "me-too" person/people, may lobby for it. Most usually, some widely-known, position-holding, but essentially dummy "leader"(s) would represent the lobby.
Some of the cases may be specialized to some third-world countries, e.g. excessive, publicly-known bribery, and human-abuses (tortures,etc.) to strengthen the positions. Yet, other cases may be applicable wherever there is some centralization of power (uncheckable-by-others).
Being obedient to military-coup leaders - taking their parts in the pecking-order.
Others do research, and a plagiarist may simply copy, cut-and-paste. In a third world country I know, even the head of the academic concil (which was founded after a military coup, and sent to retirement many), was found to have plagiarized. Incidentally, after retirement, he also started the first private university in the nation - needless to say, in state-granted land (so far as I know, either completely for free, or in huge discounts, and not much checkable what the university does with the land).
At this site, another "me-too" case, is discussed as a case study: an Un-credible Ph.D.. Anonymous entry, unless you care to discover. I provide the names, through e-mail, to qualified people. (e.g:academicians, and board members who grant/revoke Ph.D. degrees.)
Launching attacks against individual action. Calling for private initiatives to be collected under centralized state control.
Calling for "universities"-dominated management of transactions in the society. And the "universities" still exactly being the little-or-no-research people with practically no applied background to even start to be discussing of "defining standards," etc.
These can be big publicity shows. In a third-world country, the more recent shows were on state-wide computerization of education, and centralization of Internet, in the nation. Previously, alphabet discussions had taken decades. Nothing had happened, until Unicode was designed, by three American researchers . And the Internet problem was resolved when state lifted its monopoly/limit over international/satellite access, NOT by even further restricting.
The education issue is even more bizarre. What they object to, is the buying of dissimilar machines by separate schools, and many of such computer-labs being unusable. When you reflect on such "professors"s own productivity, that is tragicomical. And further, almost anyone and everyone knows that, if a machine has only a basic interpreter, it surely can help learn a lot. The problem may not be, then, bad machines, but it is the keeping them out of the reach of children, and expecting for "something big" that would make them computer-users.
Recently, the windows, as well as older apple, have been such a "big thing", to teach, e.g., word-processing, office software, games, etc. But not essential. As a point, the schools may even exchange computers for invoking even more dissimilarity. That way, the kids may get a broader notion of "word-processing" and "computers", instead of a specific brand. (I had read it in a computer-trade magazine/journal, probably CACM, that even many adult users may have not acquired the notion of "word-processing software" beyond specific software packages they have been using, like "Word", or "Word Perfect". Unless we would standardize the whole society to use a single brand, diversity in the schools may be a good thing, not bad, very especially for the purposes of teaching. (This also sounds a bit, like an example for motor-skills learning. Throwing the ball to a basket, from different places, leads to abetter performance when shooting from yet another position, as compared to study in one place and then switch to another, for the test.) If schools are for the teaching, such diversity should be though there, too.
The "all-knowing", university-resident, publicity-seeking "experts" would not tell you such aspects of the problem. They want hierarchy. And they want to be at the top of it (oops, just below the military leaders, or such, I mean). Period.
Surely, you see, there are mouth-watering numbers, when you talk of millions of computers, instead of a few tens of dissimilar computers, which the schools themselves may decide. Only being repairable, and having some compiler/interpreter being enough.
In the case of universities: Not teaching. Not researching. Yet, claiming the results, if the student(s)'s God-given intelligence and motivation works the way out.
The intelligent students read/research-and-apply themselves, and then, the time-wasting, unteaching and oppressing position-holders (literally, tyrants), still claiming to be "the teacher."
Even good-intentions are not guaranteed to exist. A mumbling in the lectures, may be doing so on purpose, or because of lacking the ability to speak coherently on the subject. (Cf. the motto I had read in a Newsweek article, when discussing Microsoft's hiring, paraphrasing: "If you choose A-quality people for the job/positions, next, they will choose A-quality people. If you choose B-quality people for the job/positions, next, they will choose C-quality people." That is, they would not want anybody else to be a threat. This also reflects the belief of some of us, when considering the (mumbling and/or error-full) useless professors, instead of whom, you should better read some good textbook.
As long as there are fine textbooks, writing new ones may not be necessary. Yet, if writing, they should help students, not keep them backward. The textbooks either being wildly inferior to foreign rivals, and/or being almost direct translations, may not be positive points for a "professor." (My motto: "You are what you did." As well as what you intend, of course. Yet, mostly, other people may only value/know your contribution/harm, as it is on the records.)
This follows after "Obey me too!", and "Respect me too!", because both in the hierarchies, and/or in the consultancy market, the two of them, most often, introduce unfair competition. The unfair comptition, maybe, still not hurt the self-made successful "student," but hurt others, who may be less succesful than that, but markedly superior to the "teachers."
Even without any research, maybe since their Ph.D. time, or maybe even not that - when that was plagiarized. Yet, then being employed as consultants, and/or jury members.
Organizing against dissent. This item, indeed, is obvious even without telling. The previous items, and many others you may reflect, and observe in such situations, only mean that holding such positions can be profitable as long as the real work is not around. The examples include, some successful researchers, who come back to homeland, but then find only apathy, then return to United States (or wherever they had their Ph.D.s) and become success stories. In other words, it is not nature (genetic stupidity of a nation), but it is nurture (and the nurtured is not the research and/or teaching success, but some academic-or-otherwise organization/climate that keeps itself by jealousy, fusion, and hierarchy.)
Legitimacy is the right-to-do. The opposite of it, the "me-too"-people, want to be granted the right about everything, even when they never qualify. The basic symptom may be those "me too" whinings, which may so often lead to exclusive-claims, too. If every right were to be considered negotiable, the aggressive, super-grabbers, may only want to enlarge their shares. e.g: Property ownership, human rights, and even your spirit. The "me too" people may leave no privacy, no personal rights. Even "human rights" might turn into a tool to oppress people - through lieful slogans.