Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

danco.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 172 posts

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#51

Post by javajosh »

I believe America has 4 Great Games, with 4 traditional city centers: Knowledge (Boston), Money (New York), Fame (Hollywood), Power (DC). (Arguably there is a fifth, Tech (Silicon Valley), which is Knowledge, Money & Power, all rolled together, and in that order).

The Office only takes place inside a small, mundane part of the Money game, and I think the middle ladder in the OP's post muddles Money and Knowledge. Note that all the games are used as backdrops, Power being the more usual pick: all legal/police/crime content inhabits that space.

Its also important to note that the Office takes place in the UK and America, winners of the second world war, and so the ones where the Games have grown in size and complexity monotonically for over 100 years, and the players are fat, rich, and lazy (characteristic of late stage capitalism). The lack of external stressor (e.g. competition, frugal clients, and so on) is what enables the company, and its employees, to be detached from reality and still survive despite these costly distractions. This detachment is the inevitable cost of great wealth and long periods of uninterrupted success, and is the mechanism by which large scale structures, like civilizations, regress to the mean.

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#52

Post by ludston »

anm89 wrote: post #14

Every person not in the bottom rung is a "sociopath"? Honestly I get a little tinge of joy out of the bitterness of these whiners sometimes. If you think every person in life that has gotten a different outcome than you is a "sociopath" your are probably something a lot closer to a sociopath than average (ie a seeming total lack of ability to empathize with a vast swath of people based on superficial differences)

I really enjoyed this comment, because it managed to say both, "I take joy from other peoples suffering", and "I'm not a sociopath, you are."

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#53

Post by themodelplumber »

vlunkr wrote: post #43

Perhaps the most annoying thing about this article is the built-in defense that "if you don't get it, you're a Micheal." I see many people in the comments making comments like this.

Intriguing point. I'd add that the "if you don't get it" phrase seems a lot more like a Michael Scott character's take on things (meanwhile--do they really get it? Or is there more than one perspective to get?). :-)

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#54

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

brighton36 wrote: post #16
dash2 wrote: post #8

Meh.... This has a real "I'm 14 and this is deep" vibe. Like a teenager who thinks their dad is a loser, and that the real men are the guys at the bottom in tough blue collar jobs, or at the top in power suits being Wolves of Wall Street. Insights like this can be fun, but they're for the third beer with your buddies, not for writing down.

It's very odd that 'baby talk' is professional. I don't think society was always this way. I also respect anyone who questions why this is the case. Assuming it's an efficiency, we should be able to justify this behavior.

I'd be surprised if there was any place or time where people didn't placate and humor those with power over them. The article's label of "babytalk" for this behavior just obscures the observation; it would be like calling typical code review language "fussytalk" and then expounding on how fussy programmers are.

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#55

Post by perrygeo »

mr_cyborg wrote: post #35

The Gervais Principle is a great read for fans of The Office and/or people who work at large companies. Nice to see it get a shout out. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

This. The OP is effectively a re-wording of the Gervais principal - same idea with slightly less words in blog form. It's a bit ingenious to claim a whole new theory.

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#56

Post by H8crilA »

croissants wrote: post #37
6chars wrote: post #29

I don't think the author really understands the characterization of Michael Scott. I can't imagine the hypothetical scene of Michael Scott taking pride in knowing how to use chopsticks. That sounds way more out of character to me than having him not know how to use them. Hard for me to take the article seriously when it has to make up character traits for Michael Scott to make its point. I believe that the type of pe…

I agree, this bit in particular seems wrong to me: > Posturetalk is everything said by Michael, Dwight and Andy, to anyone: the staff, the execs, or each other. Everything they say is some form or another of meaningless, performative babbling. I only really remember the first four seasons of The Office , but I remember Michael as being a very skilled salesman and a very unskilled manager. But Michael's skill as a sal…

You just wrote it yourself - he has an enormous desire to be praised, so much so that he completely fails to notice just how much he lacks a connection with literally anyone or anything (Michael is of course a comically over-emphasized example). This is the key to understanding the "clueless" or the "educated gentry" ladder, they are unhappy with being in "labor" but lack the balls/intelligence/true desire/luck/whatever else to be the "elite", so they come up with alternative scoring rules. Why do you think writing an op-ed in the NYT is so highly desired in that ladder? The other ladders don't dabble in praise, they either want their jobs to satisfy basic life needs (labour) or want ever-growing power with minimal regard to others opinion (elite), more specifically others opinion is only relevant insofar as it is a stepping stone on the path to more power.

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#57

Post by leetcrew »

croissants wrote: post #37
6chars wrote: post #29

I don't think the author really understands the characterization of Michael Scott. I can't imagine the hypothetical scene of Michael Scott taking pride in knowing how to use chopsticks. That sounds way more out of character to me than having him not know how to use them. Hard for me to take the article seriously when it has to make up character traits for Michael Scott to make its point. I believe that the type of pe…

I agree, this bit in particular seems wrong to me: > Posturetalk is everything said by Michael, Dwight and Andy, to anyone: the staff, the execs, or each other. Everything they say is some form or another of meaningless, performative babbling. I only really remember the first four seasons of The Office , but I remember Michael as being a very skilled salesman and a very unskilled manager. But Michael's skill as a sal…

michael's desire for connection does make him a lot more genuine than most of the other characters on the show, although this might be because he just isn't capable of the subterfuge and even the casual sarcasm employed by the others.

a lot of michael's behaviors are pretty naked attempts at gaining status. the irony is that he latches onto things that no one else actually respects. a good example is when he bought the sebring. michael did not buy that car because he liked it; he bought it because he wanted other people to see him in it, purely a flex. as is often the case, the joke was on him. no one thought the sebring was a cool car. just continuing on the car theme, look at what pre-breakdown jan was driving: a volvo, a nice vehicle befitting someone of her stature but not flashy.

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#58

Post by LordDragonfang »

sokoloff wrote: post #26
MilnerRoute wrote: post #4

See also "The Peter Principle," which famously argued that everyone eventually rises to their level of incompetence. The more interesting question is what do you do in response to that? The Peter Principle books actually argued you should turn down that last promotion. But how do we avoid becoming Michael Scott?

The thing about the Peter Principle is how do you know which is the "last promotion" that you should turn down? No one should turn down the first promotion (from "fresh into the workforce" to "basically competent developer" [or journeyman welder/electrician/plumber or whatever the equivalent is for your field]). After that it gets murky because everyone has their own abilities and willingness to do what it takes to c…

I think we just need to make it more acceptable in corporate culture to go, "hey, I'm no longer growing or thriving in this role, perhaps I should return to my old one", preferably without receiving a pay cut.

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#59

Post by superbcarrot »

redisman wrote: post #23
ryan-duve wrote: post #2

This is a really well-written article. I am not sure if this spin on the cited references is novel but it is the first I am seeing any of it. I am jarred how well it describes the "middle" of society, including how many of my own behaviors/beliefs are captured. One thing I am having trouble with is the connection between Michael and the "educated" ladder, even though a big portion of the article is dedicated to that.…

The metaphor definitely breaks in the middle ladder. Why not just do labor, middle management, owners like in the first part of the piece? I get that everyone hates NYT opinion writers but that’s like 20 people - not a social class. Also do software engineers fall into upper middle class or high skilled labor? I think they’re in both. Or maybe I just don’t have any interactions with the middle ladder in real life and…

> Why not just do labor, middle management, owners like in the first part of the piece?

I think the idea is that the communication styles from the first part carry over to the second. Which means that if you're an university-educated professional or a cultural leader, you mostly communicate through baby-talk and posture-talk. At least that seems to be the author's point, I'm not sure to what extent I agree.

Post reply on HN