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

The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

ribbonfarm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 154 posts

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#121

Post by titanomachy »

jasmer wrote: post #106

Thank 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.…

“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.”

This sounds more like middle management to me. The true Sociopaths in the places I’ve worked (I’m thinking SVP to C-level) are in the hundreds of millions net worth or on track to get there.

EDIT: as I write this, I realize most of the places I’ve worked are huge, powerful companies and might not be representative. But the first company I worked at was worth less than a billion dollars, and I think the CEO might have been the only real Sociopath in the room.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#122

Post by jasmer »

titanomachy wrote: post #121
jasmer wrote: post #106

Thank 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.…

“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.” This sounds more like middle management to me. The true Sociopaths in the places I’ve worked (I’m thinking SVP to C-level) are in the hundreds of millions net worth or on track to get there. EDIT: as I write this, I realize most of the places I’ve worked are huge, powerf…

Good points, but most CEO's don't really earn that much, and even net worth generally several million.

And I don't mean to discount your experience, but even a lot of 'big time' CEO's are not worth 'hundred's of millions'. Maybe 10's. Not 100's.

Also, CEO's are interesting and different people, it's actually hard to know if they are 'sociopaths' from just being in a meeting with them. In fact, even knowing them for some time it's hard to tell. Remember they are living in an identity, all the time. They have to be not just 'on' but 'really on' - so it just feels kind of otherworldly with them, that doesn't mean 'sociopath'. I think looking at actions, particularly layoffs, how they are handled, the kind of marketing, growth, underhanded tactics is more helpful.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#123

Post by nostrademons »

titanomachy wrote: post #119
IsaacL wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“It’s possible that Scott and his friends… are Losers” I don’t know if the term is even applicable to people who don’t work in large organizations. Scott’s a psychiatrist. A lot of doctors work in small partnerships where these dynamics might not play out.

There's a level where these dynamics operate throughout the economy, outside of the organization. Venkatesh Rao wrote another classic essay [1] where he describes a dynamic where "the 1% and the 90% collaborat[e] to prey on the 9% in the middle — the Jeffersonian middle class."

Scott in this model is a Clueless - he is part of the 9% naive enough (and yet proficient enough in their trade) to believe that they can survive on their own merits and exist in an objective reality of pure reason, outside of social reality and its fickle emotional currents. And sure enough, it ended in a member of the cultural 1% (a journalist) collaborating with the 90% (Internet mobs) to prey on the 9% (a psychologist-blogger), dox him for pageviews, and force him from his job and his blog.

You'll also notice this dynamic in a lot of populist movements, eg. Trump (1%) collaborates with his MAGA fans (90%) to own the urban libs (9%).

[1] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#124

Post by nostrademons »

ep103 wrote: post #71
shubhamjain wrote: post #18

When I first read this, I found it too cynical for my tastes. But now, I can say it's a bit relatable. Being a software engineer, I don't find the "bad" bargain I have for myself that bad. I am a happy "loser." But over the years, I have observed— multiple times—obviously talented people who have been slogging for a shitty company for years. It takes them forever to realize they are wasting their time and have to tak…

The tone of the article is extremely negative. Sociopath, Clueless, Loser. And that leads to a generally negative framing of everything and all of the people in question. The general concepts: some people act as capitalists, some people find meaning in their work and lose sight of the capitalistic nature of work, and some people find meaning outside of work and do so by doing the bare minimum at work and not playing…

The terminology is intentionally punchy as a way to get pageviews - if it were dryly academic, would we be talking about this article 13 years later? I think there was a FAQ somewhere on the original series that was like Q: "Is this just satire?" and A: "Nothing is just satire." It was supposed to be humorous in its over-directness because Venkatesh actually engages with his audience on an emotional level, at the cost of some precision.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#125

Post by nostrademons »

aynsof wrote: post #95
ep103 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tone of the article is extremely negative. Sociopath, Clueless, Loser. And that leads to a generally negative framing of everything and all of the people in question. The general concepts: some people act as capitalists, some people find meaning in their work and lose sight of the capitalistic nature of work, and some people find meaning outside of work and do so by doing the bare minimum at work and not playing…

Eric Dietrich has a softer framing for this: instead of sociopaths, losers, and clueless; you have opportunists, pragmatists, and idealists [0]. In my opinion it works just as well, without any of the negativity or cynicism of the original Gervais article. [0]: https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/

The Pink Floyd album "Animals" terms them "Dogs", "Sheep", and "Pigs", which is just as cynical (probably moreso) but also has the catchiness which Sociopath/Loser/Clueless exhibits but Opportunists/Pragmatists/Idealists does not.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#126

Post by nostrademons »

stu_ wrote: post #110
b3morales wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thou…

"Competent" on the object level - they are the people that are really good at the technical aspects of their job, but really bad at reading social cues or playing the political game. When they leave to found startups (and I've done this, as a Clueless), they are the ones who build a brilliantly engineered product that nobody wants, or stumble upon a hot idea only to get forced out by a VC's termsheet that they didn't understand, or they become the richest man in the world and then accidentally buy Twitter for $43B.

If you believe that starting a company is a pure meritocracy based on how good you can build a product, you are almost by definition Clueless.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#127

Post by dang »

Related:

The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31904607 - June 2022 (1 comment)

The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25486869 - Dec 2020 (60 comments)

The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23697779 - July 2020 (1 comment)

The Gervais Principle (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22116864 - Jan 2020 (1 comment)

The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21962450 - Jan 2020 (1 comment)

The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851505 - July 2017 (1 comment)

The Curse of Development - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14177427 - April 2017 (28 comments)

Wonderful Human Beings - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1790749 - Oct 2010 (3 comments)

The Gervais Principle III: The Curse of Development - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1267202 - April 2010 (27 comments)

Random Promotions and the Gervais Principle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=994671 - Dec 2009 (9 comments)

The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=937541 - Nov 2009 (32 comments)

The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=881296 - Oct 2009 (63 comments)

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#128

Post by karpierz »

tsol wrote: post #68
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a boss who was a complete and utter sociopath (by the article's definitions), but there were few people I'd rather go to the pub and have a pint with. Dangerous combination. Gotta watch out for those. What he couldn't otherwise make happen through force of will, he could through personality. He's the CIO at some middling company now, and there's no way I'd connect to him on LinkedIn.

Why are people afraid of these sociopath types? I'm new to the corporate world, but it's not like they're going to just randomly attack you right?

You don't need to be afraid of Sociopaths as written. Especially not if you're just starting out.

Rather, think of them as massive waves on the ocean. They don't care whether you ride them to shore or are shattered beneath them. Focus more on figuring out which way the waves are going rather than how to stop them.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#129

Post by karpierz »

theptip wrote: post #61
tomrod wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that he was clueless. He was also a sociopath and nominally in charge, though not by his own choice. A patsy set up to fail. And I 100% agree on Cersei.

I think it’s important to distinguish DSM Sociopath (Joffrey) from Gervais Principle Sociopath (Cersei). Both abbreviate to “sociopath” but they are very different concepts. I don’t think Joffrey qualifies as a GP Sociopath at all, as GP notes. While he was “in charge” he didn’t play the GP Sociopath game, and so was quickly removed. As the OP notes it’s possible for Clueless to be placed in positions of power in ple…

This scene really highlights the difference between the Clueless (Joffrey) and the Sociopath (Tywin): https://youtu.be/BM6kMHH-G64

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#130

Post by eric-hu »

nostrademons wrote: post #125
aynsof wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eric Dietrich has a softer framing for this: instead of sociopaths, losers, and clueless; you have opportunists, pragmatists, and idealists [0]. In my opinion it works just as well, without any of the negativity or cynicism of the original Gervais article. [0]: https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/

The Pink Floyd album "Animals" terms them "Dogs", "Sheep", and "Pigs", which is just as cynical (probably moreso) but also has the catchiness which Sociopath/Loser/Clueless exhibits but Opportunists/Pragmatists/Idealists does not.

That sounds like the album is using the allegories from George Orwell’s Animal Farm.
Post reply on HN