The article is rife with references to a mediocre tv show, but it doesn’t contain a single example of the principle as applied to a firm. The author is an expert in something, but it isn’t business.
The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
51–60 of 190 posts
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#52The key ingredients of successful memetic corporate organizational theory are cynicism, detachment and disparagement. By describing executives as sociopaths and the middle management as losers this article allows the reader to feel superior to those alongside, above, and below them in the org chart, while the generally cynical tone allows the reader to feel aloof and acts to enhance the already established sense of s…
To an extent, sure, there is definitely an element of that. It certainly is interesting that it ends up on HN as often as it does though tbh until now I assumed it had more to do with the theory of office that managed to capture a plausible explanation why "The Office" felt as close to the real thing than most of us felt comfortable with.
edit: Just the explanation of 'stakes' made me realize that ribbonfarm was onto something there.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#53I’ve read this before, and while an entertaining thought experiment, I’m not sure there is anything really actionable here. Maybe just be mindful that people are trying to exploit you.
I would say the same of Rene Girard’s writing. It’s a lens to try to make sense of the world, not a method.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Keep in mind that in practice this classification is not perfect, as in you cannot just bucketize people into Gosh that's such an INFJ thing to say! /s[ubtle]
“INFJ”, that’s from that workplace astrology, right?
Meyers briggs is not “astrology” - it doesn’t claim to predict anything. It categorizes how people already consciously see themselves with Carl Jungs archetypes. The main point of the archetype concept is to then explore the part of you that is different from how you see yourself- your “shadow” for the purpose of personal development.
It’s not mysterious, mystical, or claiming to be science- it’s just a very simple set of arbitrary categories to give you a different perspective on yourself, and point you in a direction of dealing with things you would otherwise avoid because it’s uncomfortable to think about. For example if you see yourself as “rational” and reject “emotional” thinking, it can be helpful to actually explore your emotional side rather than push it away.
The concept itself is a useful and simple thing, but is mostly misunderstood and misused… I don’t see how an employer testing employees would be useful.
As someone who has read Carl Jungs books, but has not encountered it in the workplace, it annoys me to see people talking derisively about it from a place of misunderstanding.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#55Dilbert!
(I know that Scott Adams got chastised for some views/tweets/whatever and I don't care)
Now, to the cartoons. I was introduced to them back in 2000 or 2001 by a colleague. We both loved the Monty Pythons, so we had that in common to begin with. Once I read the first few strips, I got hooked. I starting 'seeing' these chars to my colleagues (and to myself).
Dilbert has taught me A LOT about psychology and operating in large corporations. My all-time favorite cartoon is (and will most likely forever be): https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/1998-04-10
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cant do it in German.
You are getting -- I think -- reflexively downvoted, but I genuinely think you are onto something. German grammar has strict word order rules as opposed to say Polish, where syntax is much more permissive ( for that one aspect of it ). I wonder to what extent native language changes how brain functions over the course of one's life.
Nah, spoken German can handle that just fine. Spoken German has different rules from written German (and, of course, people have quite a bit more tolerance for minor breaks of grammatical rules in ad-hoc spoken language anyway.)
To give an example: a bog standard German sentence puts the verb in second place. Everything else is fairly flexible, eg you can either put object or subject first (unlike in written English, where the place of the subject is much more constrained).
Now, when you have a subordinate clause, written German puts the finite at the end. Like "Barbara besuchte das Restaurant, weil sie Hunger hatte."
In spoken German, you can get away with "Barbara besucht das Restaurant, weil.. sie hatte ja Hunger." Especially if you pause to think at the place marked by the two dots.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of my good thinking is done like this. Walking around the house talking out loud to myself about a topic without knowing where it's going. Over the years I've trained myself to try and speak more and more in this mode and I find it has good outcomes. It's not how it works but to myself I call it "putting my brain in analog mode". I also try to write like this for all my first passes. I also found it works for dr…
Cant do it in German.
My native language is Dutch, not German, but the word order restrictions are similar. But note that these word orders apply to subsentences: units of subject, object and verb, with additional stuff like prepositional phrases around it. Nothing at all is strict about how you combine these subsentences together into an argument: if this, then that, but maybe such, and perhaps so, thus something else — at least in informal speech.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#58Dilbert! (I know that Scott Adams got chastised for some views/tweets/whatever and I don't care) Now, to the cartoons. I was introduced to them back in 2000 or 2001 by a colleague. We both loved the Monty Pythons, so we had that in common to begin with. Once I read the first few strips, I got hooked. I starting 'seeing' these chars to my colleagues (and to myself). Dilbert has taught me A LOT about psychology and ope…
Late stage Scott Adams has some pretty icky views, but that doesn’t change the fact that he had some spot on insights about modern office culture. “Spot on” may not be a strong enough term - “timeless” may be a more appropriate one.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#59This just reeks of bitterness. Sounds like someone trying to get to the top, failed somewhere along the way and constructed this model to funnel frustration and sorta explain away their failure. The judgment permeates the model, apparently the only desirable position js at the top (but then you're a sociopath), second best is a checked-out loser. To me, being a "clueless" or "over-performing loser" is preferable to a…
we must imagine Sisyphus happy
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#60This just reeks of bitterness. Sounds like someone trying to get to the top, failed somewhere along the way and constructed this model to funnel frustration and sorta explain away their failure. The judgment permeates the model, apparently the only desirable position js at the top (but then you're a sociopath), second best is a checked-out loser. To me, being a "clueless" or "over-performing loser" is preferable to a…
> I'd rather make my work enjoyable than having to suffer 8 hours a day.
And you're making an irrational decision because it makes you feel better. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't really contradict the essence of the article. If you look at work from the economic point of view, it's just an economic transaction, we are selling our time for money. Selling more of my time for more money or selling less of it for the same money are both rational things to do, selling more time and effort for the same money is not very rational.