Hacker News Reader

Comment by SigmundA | Hacker News Reader

CEO Reed Hastings is described as a dedicated adherent to the culture and several former employees said he is “unencumbered by emotion”—in a good way.

Is this not the definition of a psychopath?

This really does sound like hell to me. Then again a lot of modern corporate culture especially in tech seems to be moving toward this type of hell. Basically a form of social Darwinism.

Life and more specifically happiness is not efficient. Maximizing profit and growth and performance might work better unencumbered by emotions, survival of only the fittest, but does that lead to happiness?

View on HN

Perhaps one counter argument to this is that, at the end of the day, pretty much all profit-driven enterprises will do what is necessary to maximize profits (without regards to emotion).

So, if anything, I give it to Netflix that at least they're being honest about it, as opposed to lots of other "we're changing the world", cultish organizations that talk a lot about how "we're all a big family", but then when the going gets tough all that goes out the window in the interests of "maximizing shareholder value".

There are many parts to being diagnosed a psychopath. I don't think Reed fits. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindmelding/201301/w...

Or a Stoic?

Stoic maybe if the same rules applied to him, but it is not the case, they apply to everyone except himself. Maybe it is just me, but I don't like when people apply harsh rules for everyone except themselves. Cult or dictatorship come to mind.

When you're the owner/manager of something, you get to decide how people use the things under your control. It's the same way if you let someone borrow your car or other valuable possession: you'll see rules for how that item can be used (e.g. don't take the Lamborghini off-roading).

If that behavior extends outside of things you _should_ control (e.g. you try to control your friends and acquaintances), then it can be considered psychopathic or sociopathic. If you're just trying to minimize harm to things you control, then I'd argue that it's normal.

The CEO of a company is very much interested in running things efficiently. Without more information, there's really nothing to suggest this CEO has a mental disorder.

Not everything that is lawful is also ethical. He can do it and I firmly believe it is unethical at the same time. Also, and I am not necessarily referring to the CEO, being a bad person – when the noun would actually start with the letter a – doesn't mean having a mental disorder.

It does for shareholders, the only people who matter in a capitalist economy. The only people at all, really, everyone else is just a resource to be maximally extracted from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com