Haven't seen this posted for almost 6 months. Yall are getting slow.
Great read, but also fails the sniff test the harder you think about it.
The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
101–110 of 154 posts
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they main incentive that drives people to initially become moderators is the desire to keep the community they operate in clean and rule abiding. In well-policed communities where moderators actively listen to users, or where people feel reporting and flagging mechanisms work, I would imagine people generally feel empowered enough that they are satisfied remaining a regular user. I don't think many moderators…
I've too often seen moderators decide that their job is to prevent controversies; often leading to them forbidding any poster from contradicting any other poster; creating a "first misinformation wins" forum. This is less work for them, way less cognitive work but it creates ridiculous and unfortunate results.
Do you mind giving a few examples? I can't think of any communities like that.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#103So I read this article before and found it interesting. Then I read this article that reviewed and now put less stock in the Gervais Principle https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-gervai...
It's funny, I was rereading this article and Scott Alexander's review just now, before I saw that it had been reposted on HN. Scott makes some good points but I think he simply lacks experience in the kind of big corporations Venkat describes. I think the Gervais Principle can be observed most readily in large, old-economy firms operating in zero-sum industries. It's probably more predominant on the east coast than t…
I guess? There really is no escape from politics. It’s even worse in the relatively low stakes environments of academia and non profits.
Also, I think that everybody who wants to work at a big corporation should do an enterprise sales job at point in their career. It gives real insight into how decisions to pursue large and expensive initiatives are made in these types of organizations.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#104I love The Office, but I don’t believe that the writers actually have some deep knowledge of business psychology and hierarchy. It seems pointless to attempt a deep analysis through that lens.
The writers at some point decided that Michael Scott is a character we should be sympathetic with and started writing episodes that expect us to feel bad for him.
It's when I dropped off the show, I like Steve Carell, but I couldn't get past the fact that the show forgot just how the characters are awful people.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've too often seen moderators decide that their job is to prevent controversies; often leading to them forbidding any poster from contradicting any other poster; creating a "first misinformation wins" forum. This is less work for them, way less cognitive work but it creates ridiculous and unfortunate results.
Do you mind giving a few examples? I can't think of any communities like that.
These were disease-centered facebook groups mostly, but also writers groups, etc. The common idea was "If you disagree, just move along. Don't comment."
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#106Thank god for the clueless, who keep the world running.
I share some of the author's cynicism, but the thesis is a bit flawed.
There's a very key mistake, often made from a populist perspective (those who have never had power) that somehow the people at the top are able to 'freely move' through society. They cannot. Most often, they are in a gilded cage, and they are never as rich, powerful or as mobile as we think.
Execs are often sociopathic and skittish precisely because they are in a precarious situation. Do you really think that most executives can just pop off to another, massively high paying job? No. They are mostly stuck. They have public profiles and have to be careful of what they say, who they interact with. They have to 'socialize' with the right groups. Their wealth does not buy them that-that much more and that slightly nicer cottage, ski vacay, private school etc. drain the accounts really fast.
Almost anyone who is 'working at a firm' - even as an executive - is not that powerful. If they could, most people would just retire. If someone chooses to work instead of retire, well that's probably a sign of commitment and integrity which is the opposite of sociopathy.
Exec layer is definitely full of whacky people and cynical Machiavellians who are protecting their power and nothing more sure, but they are not 'mobile' and not there by choice.
Also, from a populist perspective, a lot of corporate actions seem Machiavellian, but they are not. Just realist. Made by possibly an entitled class, who make mistakes. But when you have to move people around, hire and fire in large numbers, some people will get burnt, and sometimes in a way that doesn't feel or is not nice, and that will happen even with the most competent, well-meaning leadership.
So yes, if we look at the world purely through the lens of self-interest (and for some, there's no reason to fathom anything more, which is sad), then even with the above characterization it still seems pretty bad. Except thankfully, most of people don't share this cynical view, and usually find much more purpose in what they do than their salary. Teachers are perhaps the best example of that.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#107>(the office) I’ve been unable to figure out what makes it so devastatingly effective, and elevates it so far above the likes of Dilbert and Office Space. Dilbert is a hand drawn comic so it will never have the media reach of TV. It also tends to focus more on the details of the bureaucratic brokenness for people to laugh rather than cry at in daily life. The office is syndicated TV with a new episode every week. It…
Mike Judge is also devastatingly effective. I know people who can't watch Silicon Valley because it's too real.
I've seen similar comments about Idiocracy.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always feel like I'm the only one who enjoyed the series. I don't know what's so terribly bad about it. It's not The Simpsons, and it's not _that_ related to the strip, but it's amusing in many ways.
I thought it was "OK" and probably wouldn't hate rewatching it. But it also wasn't very memorable or special IMO.
I liked it. There are a few bits I have integrated into my memetic universe. Eg: https://youtu.be/g8vHhgh6oM0 https://youtu.be/KcPx-dHYASU
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dilbert does have a cartoon TV series that ran for 2 seasons. https://youtu.be/J1KEPvuiQIs
I remember watching it as a kid and realizing that cartoons could be not good... is it better several decades later?
There is a joke at some point in time where they say pathway electronics is going to merge with etech management. And they're gonna call the new company path-e-tech management. How would a kid get this joke?
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked in faang as well for a while now, I can attest that most people seem to be capable of jumping to their own startups very easily. Companies need to craft very enticing reasons to stay on as a 'Loser' (mostly via perks and pay) and even work harder to retain 'Clueless' since the latter is even more likely to leave and launch a startup being leadership focused. 'Sociopaths' are so few that they're easily g…
The premise of the essay is that a truly Clueless would never do that; that's Sociopath behavior. That said, they are just archetypes, and to the extent we take them as valid at all, every real human will have some mix of the traits. (Even the characters in The Office do -- as I recall Angela is referred to as both a Sociopath and a Loser in different chapters of the essay.)
Agreed, but my interpretation of the following line:
"The Gervais principle predicts the exact opposite: that the most competent ones will be promoted to middle management."
Ie, the competent losers become Clueless. Hence they're capable of jumping ship / or even starting a business if not for their 'delusional loyalty'. (My point being that lots of company brainwashing mentioned by OP attempts to groom Clueless thought patterns to prevent this flight of talent).
True that starting a company is a Sociopath trait in the writeup, but - this is far from an exact science as you correctly stated =)
(nonetheless this doc has caused many great debates over the years, for sure. Reasoning through lens of obsurdities can be fun)