The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class • Hacker News Board

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#141

Post by navane » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 1:18 AM UTC

missingrib wrote: post #104

monkeycantype wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked as a software developer, in a non software company, I sat in an odd spot off to the side half way up the org chart. The non software people climbed the hierarchy not because they are competent at their jobs, in fact a highly competent person will often be passed over for promotion because they are useful where they are - but because of how they negotiated very complex social networks. A senior manager, my ma…

I don't really know what any of the things you're referring to in this comment mean. Can you expand on what "babytalk" is, maybe with an example? What is a "bullying network"? And what is "honest talk"?

Its explained in the linked article, better than i could.

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#142

Post by CRConrad » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

missingrib wrote: post #104

monkeycantype wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked as a software developer, in a non software company, I sat in an odd spot off to the side half way up the org chart. The non software people climbed the hierarchy not because they are competent at their jobs, in fact a highly competent person will often be passed over for promotion because they are useful where they are - but because of how they negotiated very complex social networks. A senior manager, my ma…

I don't really know what any of the things you're referring to in this comment mean. Can you expand on what "babytalk" is, maybe with an example? What is a "bullying network"? And what is "honest talk"?

User monkeycantype's comment discusses the article that this HN thread is about; it is linked at the top of the page. The terms you ask about are from that article. To participate in a discussion about it, it helps to read it first.

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#143

Post by pablosanta » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 1:28 AM UTC

OP could have added Andy’s need to remind everybody he attended Cornell as another proof of his point.

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#144

Post by klyrs » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 1:29 AM UTC

paultopia wrote: post #40

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.…

Yeah, I really want to know where the author is getting their model of PhDs. Are we talking about literature departments or chemistry labs?

Yeah, I was picturing my math education. He could probably get through calculus with cheating, tutoring, and begging. But I can't see him actually putting in the work to get through 200 level courses, much less grad courses.

But, omg, I can't imagine him surviving a chem lab. The whole place would be on fire within a few minutes.

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#145

Post by caf » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 1:36 AM UTC

rexreed wrote: post #137

I find it ironic that this piece is written from the perspective of the so-called "Educated Gentry", basically the same kind of performative babble of mid-tier cluelessness.

Yes - I wonder exactly where on those three ladders the author places themself?

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#146

Post by croissants » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 1:37 AM UTC

cbozeman wrote: post #129

ido wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the implications of 1/4 female or liberal arts college?

Sorry, I meant 3-in-4 are female, not 1-in-4. > A very confused sexism. To an uncritical thinker, it might definitely seem that way. To address the "liberal arts college" aspect, I mean specifically they're insulated from a lot of the reality of the rest of the world. I specifically mean the Dartmouths, Browns, etc. of the educational world. I mean people for whom a $200,000 education to have a $35,000 - $115,000 a y…

> I occasionally work with and consult for these people.

Now I'm curious. The world you describe seems quite hostile to someone with your beliefs -- how and why are you in it?

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#147

Post by ls_waiting » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 1:39 AM UTC

"Oftentimes. when people are miserable, they will want to make other people miserable, too. But it never helps."

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#148

Post by caf » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 1:41 AM UTC

I think the author has met very few PhDs - in my experience, as a group they're very aware that if they continue to work in research, their work will neither be important to most people outside of their field, nor reap great economic rewards.

In fact the more I think about it, the more this reads as an anti-academic screed - basically dunking on those with high educational attainments or artistic abilities, but only a middle-of-the-road income to show for it. And also triathletes.

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#149

Post by croissants » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 1:42 AM UTC

stretchcat wrote: post #93

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.

I've never watched the show, but I have to admit I'm a bit bemused by the number of times I've come across people saying they've got [professional] life figured out by realizing it's actually exactly like The Office , which coincidentally, is their favorite show. As I said, I haven't watched the show so I can't really appraise the claims properly, but it seems suspect to me. (Incidentally I noticed a similar tendency…

> Did that show really teach me as much as I feel?

I think one thing The Wire does is show you how bad equilibria can arise from mostly rational people making mostly rational decisions in response to the incentives around them, and seeing it play out in compelling dramatic form is a good way to cement the idea. So now it's pretty easy for me to come up with a plausible reason why bad thing x happens in my city y.

I think my main takeaway from watching The Wire in college was various ways of arriving at the conclusion that things are pretty complex. Except for the war on drugs, which should mostly end.

Re: The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

#150

Post by sk5t » Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 1:43 AM UTC

fitzroy wrote: post #63

If you’re interested in this stuff, the book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System by Paul Fussell is an entertaining and insightful book (from 1983, so a bit dated in parts but well worth it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class:_A_Guide_Through_the_Ame...

Good quick read; I think most of it does hold up. Art depicting clowns or cowboys, probably lower class; threadbare but once-good Persian carpets and shelves of books, probably higher class. The "top out of sight" class is an element most people probably don't think of.