Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Professors - mine are not monsters  (Read 5828 times)

LawNOrder

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Professors - mine are not monsters
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2006, 11:37:01 PM »

afewpegs, I think there's another thread on this board that your post more appropriately (sorry for the language used) belongs to -- I think it called "Psychopath attorneys" or something like it ..


LOL mantoytano ;)

Saturday night

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Non-verbal Leakage
« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2007, 09:44:23 PM »

Law professors won't do much overtly, they engage in subtle violence. Often, when we think of violence, we think of the very overt, loud, obvious kind primarily physical violence, but also in the form of "over the top," very loud, confrontational (and frightening) yelling, screaming or threatening.

But there is also a more subtle and insidious form of "word violence," and this occurs much more frequently because it "goes under the radar" and masks itself as "normal." While it can be easily dismissed or overlooked because of its quieter presentation, it can do serious damage none-the-less, by

1) creating stress
2) fostering oppression
3) deflating motivation
4) curtailing creativity
5) eventually leading the way to more overt forms of violence.

In individual interactions, one who uses the power of words in subtly violent ways may be doing so consciously, in a purposeful effort to manipulate, or unconsciously, out of his or her "unexamined Shadow." Examples of subtle "word violence" can show up as malicious gossip, passive-aggression, purposeful withholding, inconsistency, incivility, and bullying, to name a few.

[...]

Withholding draws its power from the imprinting of an authoritarian system, in which people have been trained by more overt communications including body language so that ultimately the overt words or facial/body expression are no longer needed in order for the person in the perceived position of authority to manipulate the situation to his or her advantage. [...]


Some parts of the body can be controlled more than others. The easy parts to discipline are those parts whose actions we are most aware of in everyday signaling. We know most about our facial expressions, and so they come out on top on self-awareness list. We lie best with our faces. Hand movements and postures are more useful clues to deception because people are less aware of them; gesticulations can be studied carefully for deception clues. The legs and feet are of particular interest because this is the part of the body where people are least aware of what they are doing. Frequently, however, the actions of this lower region of the body are obscured from view so that, in practice, their usefulness is severely limited. Legs and feet are a vital give-away area.

Whole-body lying is difficult for most people because most people lack practice. Few people are ever called upon to engage in sustained, deliberate deceit. Most of us would be classified as leakers, but there is a minority of devious people that can be called professional non-leakers. Non-leakers are those whose working lives involve repeated and prolonged deceptions and, what is more, deceptions that are open to challenge. Unless they are capable of lying successfully and sustaining their lies, they are doomed to failure in their chosen professions. As a result they have to become adept at contextual manipulation (choosing the right moment to lie) and at whole-body lying. This may require years of training.

When lying, the nurses decreased the frequency of simple gesticulations they made with their hands. The hand actions they would normally use to emphasize verbal statements to drive home a point were significantly reduced. The hand actions, which act as illustrators of spoken words, are not identified gestures. We know that we wave our hands about when we are talking excitedly, but we have no idea just exactly what it is that our hands are doing. Our awareness that our hands do something, but our unawareness of precisely what it is, makes us suspicious of the possible transparency of these actions. Unconsciously we sense that perhaps our hands will give us away so we suppress them. This is not easy to do. When lying, the nurses increased the frequency of hand-to-face self-contacts. We all touch our faces from time to time during conversations, but the number of times these simple actions are performed rises dramatically during moments of deception. Deception favorites include: the Chin Stroke, the Lips Press, the Mouth Cover, the Nose Touch, the Cheek Rub, the Eyebrow Scratch, the Earlobe Pull, and the Hair Groom. During deception any of these may show a marked increase, but two in particular should be watched for: the Nose Touch and the Mouth Cover.

When lying, the nurses showed an increase in the number of body shifts as they spoke. Watched closely, the liar can be seen to make tiny body-shifts and to make them much more frequently than when telling the truth. They are slight changes in the resting posture of the trunk as the speaker moves from one sitting posture to another. When lying, the nurses made greater use of one particular hand action, namely the Hand Shrug. While other gesticulations decreased in frequency, this became more common. It is almost as if the hands were disclaiming any responsibility for the verbal statements being made. When lying, the nurses displayed facial expressions that were almost indistinguishable from those given during truthful statements. Almost, but not quite, for there were tiny micro-expressions that leaked the truth. These micro-expressions are so small and so quick -- a mere fraction of a second -- that untrained observers are unable to detect them. These micro-expressions are caused by the face's all-too-rapid efficiency in registering inner feelings. When a mood change seeks expression, it can expect to be registered by the alteration in the set of facial muscles in much less than a second. The counter-message from the brain, telling the face to shut up, often fails to catch up with the primary mood change message. The result is that a facial expression begins and then, a split second later, is canceled by the counter-message. What happens on the face during the split second delay is a tiny, fleeting hint of an expression. It is suppressed so quickly that most people never see it, but if watched for carefully during lying sessions, it can be detected and is then one of the best deception clues.

usr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Non-verbal Leakage
« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2007, 05:44:40 PM »

The legs and feet are of particular interest because this is the part of the body where people are least aware of what they are doing. Legs and feet are a vital give-away area.


You bet!

Elaine Cho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Non-verbal Leakage
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2007, 09:49:52 PM »

Whole-body lying is difficult for most people because most people lack practice. Few people are ever called upon to engage in sustained, deliberate deceit. Most of us would be classified as leakers, but there is a minority of devious people that can be called professional non-leakers. Non-leakers are those whose working lives involve repeated and prolonged deceptions and, what is more, deceptions that are open to challenge. Unless they are capable of lying successfully and sustaining their lies, they are doomed to failure in their chosen professions. As a result they have to become adept at contextual manipulation (choosing the right moment to lie) and at whole-body lying. This may require years of training.


Lawyers.

Kore

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Non-verbal Leakage
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2008, 01:53:31 AM »

Law professors won't do much overtly, they engage in subtle violence. Often, when we think of violence, we think of the very overt, loud, obvious kind primarily physical violence, but also in the form of "over the top," very loud, confrontational (and frightening) yelling, screaming or threatening.

But there is also a more subtle and insidious form of "word violence," and this occurs much more frequently because it "goes under the radar" and masks itself as "normal." While it can be easily dismissed or overlooked because of its quieter presentation, it can do serious damage none-the-less, by

1) creating stress
2) fostering oppression
3) deflating motivation
4) curtailing creativity
5) eventually leading the way to more overt forms of violence.

In individual interactions, one who uses the power of words in subtly violent ways may be doing so consciously, in a purposeful effort to manipulate, or unconsciously, out of his or her "unexamined Shadow." Examples of subtle "word violence" can show up as malicious gossip, passive-aggression, purposeful withholding, inconsistency, incivility, and bullying, to name a few.

[...]

Withholding draws its power from the imprinting of an authoritarian system, in which people have been trained by more overt communications including body language so that ultimately the overt words or facial/body expression are no longer needed in order for the person in the perceived position of authority to manipulate the situation to his or her advantage. [...]


Some parts of the body can be controlled more than others. The easy parts to discipline are those parts whose actions we are most aware of in everyday signaling. We know most about our facial expressions, and so they come out on top on self-awareness list. We lie best with our faces. Hand movements and postures are more useful clues to deception because people are less aware of them; gesticulations can be studied carefully for deception clues. The legs and feet are of particular interest because this is the part of the body where people are least aware of what they are doing. Frequently, however, the actions of this lower region of the body are obscured from view so that, in practice, their usefulness is severely limited. Legs and feet are a vital give-away area.

Whole-body lying is difficult for most people because most people lack practice. Few people are ever called upon to engage in sustained, deliberate deceit. Most of us would be classified as leakers, but there is a minority of devious people that can be called professional non-leakers. Non-leakers are those whose working lives involve repeated and prolonged deceptions and, what is more, deceptions that are open to challenge. Unless they are capable of lying successfully and sustaining their lies, they are doomed to failure in their chosen professions. As a result they have to become adept at contextual manipulation (choosing the right moment to lie) and at whole-body lying. This may require years of training.

When lying, the nurses decreased the frequency of simple gesticulations they made with their hands. The hand actions they would normally use to emphasize verbal statements to drive home a point were significantly reduced. The hand actions, which act as illustrators of spoken words, are not identified gestures. We know that we wave our hands about when we are talking excitedly, but we have no idea just exactly what it is that our hands are doing. Our awareness that our hands do something, but our unawareness of precisely what it is, makes us suspicious of the possible transparency of these actions. Unconsciously we sense that perhaps our hands will give us away so we suppress them. This is not easy to do. When lying, the nurses increased the frequency of hand-to-face self-contacts. We all touch our faces from time to time during conversations, but the number of times these simple actions are performed rises dramatically during moments of deception. Deception favorites include: the Chin Stroke, the Lips Press, the Mouth Cover, the Nose Touch, the Cheek Rub, the Eyebrow Scratch, the Earlobe Pull, and the Hair Groom. During deception any of these may show a marked increase, but two in particular should be watched for: the Nose Touch and the Mouth Cover.

When lying, the nurses showed an increase in the number of body shifts as they spoke. Watched closely, the liar can be seen to make tiny body-shifts and to make them much more frequently than when telling the truth. They are slight changes in the resting posture of the trunk as the speaker moves from one sitting posture to another. When lying, the nurses made greater use of one particular hand action, namely the Hand Shrug. While other gesticulations decreased in frequency, this became more common. It is almost as if the hands were disclaiming any responsibility for the verbal statements being made. When lying, the nurses displayed facial expressions that were almost indistinguishable from those given during truthful statements. Almost, but not quite, for there were tiny micro-expressions that leaked the truth. These micro-expressions are so small and so quick -- a mere fraction of a second -- that untrained observers are unable to detect them. These micro-expressions are caused by the face's all-too-rapid efficiency in registering inner feelings. When a mood change seeks expression, it can expect to be registered by the alteration in the set of facial muscles in much less than a second. The counter-message from the brain, telling the face to shut up, often fails to catch up with the primary mood change message. The result is that a facial expression begins and then, a split second later, is canceled by the counter-message. What happens on the face during the split second delay is a tiny, fleeting hint of an expression. It is suppressed so quickly that most people never see it, but if watched for carefully during lying sessions, it can be detected and is then one of the best deception clues.


Great post, tagging it.

straub

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Professors - mine are not monsters
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2008, 10:42:49 PM »
I remember this one professor of mine ... she also served as a student adviser ... she would subtly make positive references to certain organizations, judges, and circuit courts in her classes ... whenever possible she would encourage interested students to join ... in addition, she would spot and assess other students for being coldly approached by certain parties later on ... to us it appeared she had discreet relationships with the above mentioned parties to spot and assess candidates for recruitment ...
I was sad because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet. So I said, "Got any shoes you're not using?"

Morgan de Toi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Professors - mine are not monsters
« Reply #26 on: October 22, 2008, 01:36:55 PM »
Unless she was paid for that, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, straub..

munee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Eye Contact
« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2008, 05:45:53 PM »
Avoiding eye contact is 1 of the top 5 indices LE uses to flag a person!
We believe in a BETTER network!

charming, so

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: "WORD VIOLENCE"
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2012, 04:42:24 PM »
Law professors won't do much overtly, they engage in subtle violence. Often, when we think of violence, we think of the very overt, loud, obvious kind primarily physical violence, but also in the form of "over the top," very loud, confrontational (and frightening) yelling, screaming or threatening.

But there is also a more subtle and insidious form of "word violence," and this occurs much more frequently because it "goes under the radar" and masks itself as "normal." While it can be easily dismissed or overlooked because of its quieter presentation, it can do serious damage none-the-less, by

1) creating stress
2) fostering oppression
3) deflating motivation
4) curtailing creativity
5) eventually leading the way to more overt forms of violence.

In individual interactions, one who uses the power of words in subtly violent ways may be doing so consciously, in a purposeful effort to manipulate, or unconsciously, out of his or her "unexamined Shadow." Examples of subtle "word violence" can show up as malicious gossip, passive-aggression, purposeful withholding, inconsistency, incivility, and bullying, to name a few.

(A) In the case of passive-aggression, "word violence" can manifest as a result of the passive-aggressive's strategy of saying one thing while intending and doing another. For example, a person with a tendency to act passive-aggressively may give agreement or approval while in conversation with you, but then take a different course of action than the one you agreed upon, fail to participate altogether, or actually sabotage your effort by withholding information or brewing discontent or confusion. When you confront a passive-aggressive about these behaviors, he or she will deny them outright, or even deflect accusations or blame back at you. In these ways, his or her choice of words or the choice to withhold certain words can be a form of subtle violence.

(B) Someone who consciously withholds is practicing another form of "word violence." A withholder may elect to withhold praise, feedback, agreement, or information for the purposes of gaining some measure of control or having some specific impact on you. Withholding may be a tool used by a passive-aggressive person, or may simply be the communication-control strategy of choice. Either way, withholding can escalate from lower-impact word-violence to a form of mental abuse. By withholding praise, feedback, support, or information, for example, the withholder increases his or her odds of "throwing you off-balance" and thus making you feel uncertain about what you're doing. When professors withhold praise or other information, his or her students are unclear on their priorities, and would most likely suffer greater feelings of insecurity, lower morale, and general stress.

Withholding draws its power from the imprinting of an authoritarian system, in which people have been trained by more overt communications including body language so that ultimately the overt words or facial/body expression are no longer needed in order for the person in the perceived position of authority to manipulate the situation to his or her advantage. In an interaction in which this dynamic is present, a person simply chooses to withhold at certain points in the conversation, thus triggering deeply held patterns. The ideal outcome in the withholder's mind is for the other person to capitulate his or her will and succumb to or "fall into line" with the withholder's desires or interests. Unless the other person consciously disentangles him or herself, the cultural patterns will tend to play out in the withholder's favor, which is why he or she uses this strategy.

(C) Inconsistency can be another form of "word violence," particularly if a person is aware of or consciously chooses inconsistency as a means to an end (usually a feeling of control). Someone who is inconsistent may tell you different things at different times, or tell different things to different people, thus creating confusion and uncertainty. For example, the inconsistent person may give an assignment, and then when the other person is well along with the work and checks in regarding progress, may blithely say, "Oh that. We're not doing that anymore. Didn't I tell you?" Another manifestation of inconsistency is when a person "runs hot and cold" being friendly and supportive one minute, and distant or curt the next, with the effect of keeping others in a state of perpetual imbalance. One common saying for this manifestation is when a person "pulls the rug from beneath your feet." Inconsistency can also escalate from mere unskillfulness to a type of "word violence" if an individual repeatedly and consciously demonstrates inconsistency between what he or she says or demands and what he or she actually does or models.

(D) Incivility can be another form of "word violence" that includes passive-aggressive behavior, withholding, inconsistency, bullying, and other forms of communication and behavior that most people would identify as rude, uncooperative, hostile, or insensitive. Examples of chronic incivility might include not returning phone calls or emails, not complying with requests, lying, blaming, extreme curtness, or withholding information or support. As with other forms of "word violence," incivility can escalate into more overt forms of violence, and, at a minimum, jeopardizes enjoyment, satisfaction, and overall well-being each of which affects an individual's ability to participate fully and to the highest of his or her capability.

(E) When "word violence" occurs in the form of bullying, it can begin to seem less covert and start to appear on the radar of either other individuals or, depending on the impact or results. Bullying may include overt hostility in the form of yelling, name-calling, baiting, or belittling; or it may include the more subtle but no less insidious forms of "word violence." Derisive comments including those which are veiled as humor or friendliness are also a form of bullying and incivility. Typical examples include comments or "jokes" that derisively refer to gender, spiritual practice, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, or perceived intelligence. One clue is that such comments or "jokes" aren't funny, and are often intended to diminish or make someone uncomfortable, or sow seeds of dissention and create factions none of which are productive by any definition in any kind of group or organization. Interestingly, the conscious withholding of a comment or feedback that most average people would consider a norm can also be a form of bullying in this case, the bully is manipulating another by purposely withholding approval or agreement.

"Word violence" can be so insidious that, over a relatively short time, the standard falls dramatically and yet what is considered "normal" or what is tolerated increases, creating an increasingly vulgar, crude, and cruel culture. So incivility and "word violence" soon become a new "norm." Systemic or organizational violence a feature of "corporate psychopathy" ultimately comes down to various individuals choosing to act in a way that is uncivil, violent, manipulative, or otherwise disregarding of the ill-effect on others or the common good.


We actually had a teacher who'd not bother with this petty kind of stuff - she would unilaterally decide to not apply the curve at all and give almost (but two) students Fs. She was captured by a handful of her angry students and beaten up real bad.

There were also rumors her daughter had been kidnapped once for several days, with her (the professor) not actually making a big deal about it (although, truth-be-told, there were no established connections between her daughter's mishap and her notorious grading behavior).

And yet, she continued to do the same thing over and over again for years in a raw, while she's "young and beautiful" - surprisingly cut down on that kind of thing with the passing of time, once she probably did not think it was that "natural" for an "old witch" to be "brash and bitchy".
The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach.

Stephanie K.

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Systemic/Organizational Violence
« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2012, 05:45:17 PM »

Law professors won't do much overtly, they engage in subtle violence. Often, when we think of violence, we think of the very overt, loud, obvious kind primarily physical violence, but also in the form of "over the top," very loud, confrontational (and frightening) yelling, screaming or threatening.

But there is also a more subtle and insidious form of "word violence," and this occurs much more frequently because it "goes under the radar" and masks itself as "normal." While it can be easily dismissed or overlooked because of its quieter presentation, it can do serious damage none-the-less, by

1) creating stress
2) fostering oppression
3) deflating motivation
4) curtailing creativity
5) eventually leading the way to more overt forms of violence.

(A) In the case of passive-aggression, "word violence" can manifest as a result of the passive-aggressive's strategy of saying one thing while intending and doing another. For example, a person with a tendency to act passive-aggressively may give agreement or approval while in conversation with you, but then take a different course of action than the one you agreed upon, fail to participate altogether, or actually sabotage your effort by withholding information or brewing discontent or confusion. When you confront a passive-aggressive about these behaviors, he or she will deny them outright, or even deflect accusations or blame back at you. In these ways, his or her choice of words or the choice to withhold certain words can be a form of subtle violence.

(B) Someone who consciously withholds is practicing another form of "word violence." A withholder may elect to withhold praise, feedback, agreement, or information for the purposes of gaining some measure of control or having some specific impact on you. Withholding may be a tool used by a passive-aggressive person, or may simply be the communication-control strategy of choice. Either way, withholding can escalate from lower-impact word-violence to a form of mental abuse. By withholding praise, feedback, support, or information, for example, the withholder increases his or her odds of "throwing you off-balance" and thus making you feel uncertain about what you're doing. When professors withhold praise or other information, his or her students are unclear on their priorities, and would most likely suffer greater feelings of insecurity, lower morale, and general stress.

[...]

(C) Inconsistency can be another form of "word violence," particularly if a person is aware of or consciously chooses inconsistency as a means to an end (usually a feeling of control). Someone who is inconsistent may tell you different things at different times, or tell different things to different people, thus creating confusion and uncertainty. For example, the inconsistent person may give an assignment, and then when the other person is well along with the work and checks in regarding progress, may blithely say, "Oh that. We're not doing that anymore. Didn't I tell you?" Another manifestation of inconsistency is when a person "runs hot and cold" being friendly and supportive one minute, and distant or curt the next, with the effect of keeping others in a state of perpetual imbalance. One common saying for this manifestation is when a person "pulls the rug from beneath your feet." Inconsistency can also escalate from mere unskillfulness to a type of "word violence" if an individual repeatedly and consciously demonstrates inconsistency between what he or she says or demands and what he or she actually does or models.

(D) Incivility can be another form of "word violence" that includes passive-aggressive behavior, withholding, inconsistency, bullying, and other forms of communication and behavior that most people would identify as rude, uncooperative, hostile, or insensitive. Examples of chronic incivility might include not returning phone calls or emails, not complying with requests, lying, blaming, extreme curtness, or withholding information or support. As with other forms of "word violence," incivility can escalate into more overt forms of violence, and, at a minimum, jeopardizes enjoyment, satisfaction, and overall well-being each of which affects an individual's ability to participate fully and to the highest of his or her capability.

(E) When "word violence" occurs in the form of bullying, it can begin to seem less covert and start to appear on the radar of either other individuals or, depending on the impact or results. Bullying may include overt hostility in the form of yelling, name-calling, baiting, or belittling; or it may include the more subtle but no less insidious forms of "word violence." Derisive comments including those which are veiled as humor or friendliness are also a form of bullying and incivility. Typical examples include comments or "jokes" that derisively refer to gender, spiritual practice, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, or perceived intelligence. One clue is that such comments or "jokes" aren't funny, and are often intended to diminish or make someone uncomfortable, or sow seeds of dissention and create factions none of which are productive by any definition in any kind of group or organization. Interestingly, the conscious withholding of a comment or feedback that most average people would consider a norm can also be a form of bullying in this case, the bully is manipulating another by purposely withholding approval or agreement.


We actually had a teacher who'd not bother with this petty kind of stuff - she would unilaterally decide to not apply the curve at all and give almost (but two) students Fs. She was captured by a handful of her angry students and beaten up real bad.

There were also rumors her daughter had been kidnapped once for several days, with her (the professor) not actually making a big deal about it (although, truth-be-told, there were no established connections between her daughter's mishap and her notorious grading behavior).

And yet, she continued to do the same thing over and over again for years in a raw, while she's "young and beautiful" - surprisingly cut down on that kind of thing with the passing of time, once she probably did not think it was that "natural" for an "old witch" to be "brash and bitchy".


I'm surprised you (and/or the teacher you talk about ) dismiss/-ed it as "petty." It's not "petty," it's a whole new level of "game."

FYI, passive-aggressiveness was until some time ago included as one of Personality Disorders in DSM-IV, but then - for reasons not clearly stated - it was removed. Passive-aggressive people can LITERALLY be a pain-in-the-a s s, with their sabotaging on you and their afterwards big big smile, apologizing to you for what went wrong! All done on purpose!

Withhold feedback about a certain issue tends to make it fuzzy where the mean is, what's considered "good," "bad," or in terms of professor evaluations (grading) of the student's work, "low," and "high." (You'd likely consider yourself just a "P")

As to the Inconsistency thing - I think it's pretty clear you're dealing with a b i t c h, and that you have to watch out at every second what s/he really wants you to do.

Bullying behavior is more appropriately addressed in another thread (by poster "Poni") that I'll include here for you.

Quote
Quote

[...]

[...] The bully then sits back and gains gratification from seeing others engage in destructive behavior towards each other. This is known as trolling. Most serial bullies are also serial attention-seekers. More than anything else they want attention. It doesn't matter what type of attention they get, positive or negative, as long as they can provoke someone into paying them attention. It's like a 2-year-old child throwing a tantrum to get attention from a parent. The best way to treat bullies is to refuse to respond and to refuse to engage them - which they really hate. [...] In other words, treat nobodies as nobodies. [...]

[...] The objectives of bullies are Power, Control, Domination, Subjugation. They get a kick out of seeing you react. It doesn't matter how you react, the fact they've successful provoked a reaction is, to the bully, a sign that their attempt at control have been successful. After that, it's a question of wearing you down. The more your try to explain, negotiate, conciliate, etc the more gratification they obtain from your increasingly desperate attempts to communicate with them. Understand that it is not possible to communicate in a mature adult manner with a disordered individual who's emotionally retarded.



Awesome - could you expand a bit?

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3002012.msg5396234#msg5396234


"Word violence" can be so insidious that, over a relatively short time, the standard falls dramatically and yet what is considered "normal" or what is tolerated increases, creating an increasingly vulgar, crude, and cruel culture. So incivility and "word violence" soon become a new "norm." Systemic or organizational violence a feature of "corporate psychopathy" ultimately comes down to various individuals choosing to act in a way that is uncivil, violent, manipulative, or otherwise disregarding of the ill-effect on others or the common good.