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

81–90 of 190 posts

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

#81

Post by Joker_vD »

rbanffy wrote: post #71
chongli wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s astrology because it takes unimodal distributions and splits them into two groups above and below the mean. This is a cardinal sin in statistics because it implies the existence of distinct populations that don’t really exist and so any predictions you try to make are no better than a coinflip.

They just said MBTI doesn’t predict anything. It’s a measurement tool, with limitations, and you should use it understanding those. Much like an IQ test, or a having or not a PhD, it doesn’t hold much predictive power.

If you can't make any useful predictions with it then whatever MBTI measures (or it believes it measures) is... also useless?

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

#82

Post by Arisaka1 »

throwaway7ahgb wrote: post #78
pelagicAustral wrote: post #61

I love The Office (UK version). It is one of my all time favorites, and crudely enough, after so many years of being a fan, I got a taste of what having David Brent as a boss is like... My Boss is so much like Gervais' character, that it is almost like God is taking a piss on me. I absolutely hate my current work environment, and it is all fueled by the archetype of boss caricatured in The Office. It is real, then ag…

Why haven't you been able to get an offer somewhere else?

Not the person you asked but I can give you my reasons:

1. Job market being overly picky makes it hard to jump ship, especially if you're early-mid level 2. There's a general notion that "everywhere's the same deal" so people just learn to cope with it 3. "Golden handcuffs" - compensation so good you're willing to tolerate the downsides.

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

#83

Post by pelagicAustral »

throwaway7ahgb wrote: post #78
pelagicAustral wrote: post #61

I love The Office (UK version). It is one of my all time favorites, and crudely enough, after so many years of being a fan, I got a taste of what having David Brent as a boss is like... My Boss is so much like Gervais' character, that it is almost like God is taking a piss on me. I absolutely hate my current work environment, and it is all fueled by the archetype of boss caricatured in The Office. It is real, then ag…

Why haven't you been able to get an offer somewhere else?

Market is WILD! I had a super good interview just 2 days ago, just to get a "sorry, maybe we'll call you later". I guess my stack is too crap. No one seems to, really, be hiring. ---- edit Also, I am making good money, and I can do my job with my hands tied behind my back...

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

#84

Post by jvanderbot »

pelagicAustral wrote: post #62
trojanalert wrote: post #12

To be read in conjunction with the Babbler hypothesis - The amount of time some people spend talking gets them into leadership positions. It doesn't matter what they say, just how much they rant on. I read that, and realised how insanely true it is

Goes with my reply to OP [0]. I have a colleague that is a total waste of space. Never finished a project, never wanted to take on advice, always fought on really shady grounds, but he fought everything, almost like it was either his idea of what was on-point or nothing... But he was constantly talking, he was always talking, he is always talking, most of the time about things he doesn't have a clue about... and just…

You can provide a lot of value to an organization (or a leader) without finishing a single coding project. As an engineer I hate it, but I have worked for good directors and awful directors and usually the good directors do a ton of talking and bitching and moaning. But they also are fortune tellers and crystal balls and expert C-suite anthropologists that make the work valuable rather than just busy.

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

#85

Post by mattgreenrocks »

verisimi wrote: post #39
bloqs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because extraversion is partially composed of assertiveness (big five), which directly indicates your influence on your nearby human environment

[flagged]

There is insight there if you’re able to hear it.

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

#86

Post by [deleted] »

_yb2s wrote: post #54
nkrisc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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 s…

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by _yb2s »

Joker_vD wrote: post #81
rbanffy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just said MBTI doesn’t predict anything. It’s a measurement tool, with limitations, and you should use it understanding those. Much like an IQ test, or a having or not a PhD, it doesn’t hold much predictive power.

If you can't make any useful predictions with it then whatever MBTI measures (or it believes it measures) is... also useless?

I attempted to explain what it is useful for above, but will elaborate.

The valuable result is the extreme opposite of your result- it is a therapy or personal development tool that directs you to explore and understand parts of yourself you reject or disapprove of (your “shadow”).

It simply quantifies something obvious that you already know: how you consciously see yourself- in a way that guides you to explore aspects of yourself that you otherwise would choose to avoid because it’s difficult and possibly even painful to do so.

What it measures is actually pretty banal and obvious if you are familiar with Jungian archetypes- one can easily guess the result for yourself and other people without using the test.

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

#88

Post by xyzzy4747 »

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #5

"The more you work, the less you earn." You can't really grow in business without exploitation. Whether that's using "contractors" to deliver your packages, using monopoly to slurp people's data, sourcing minerals from african blood mines or using asian sweatshops to build your phones and clothes. To me, corporate life has always been a race to see who gets exploited the most and who the least. Sociopaths don't care…

It’s not exploiting if they voluntarily do it.

The default state of humanity for thousands of years has been a lot of people living in mud houses and working all day to do subsistence farming and tending to livestock. Doesn’t sound like a great life, but they aren’t being “exploited” there either. It’s just people versus Mother Nature. However, many would gladly take 9-5 jobs in an air conditioned building instead, and live in nicer homes with utilities. It’s voluntary labor.

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

#89

Post by cainxinth »

trojanalert wrote: post #12

To be read in conjunction with the Babbler hypothesis - The amount of time some people spend talking gets them into leadership positions. It doesn't matter what they say, just how much they rant on. I read that, and realised how insanely true it is

A related type is the Jargonist, who not only speaks endlessly but in a stream of acronyms, buzz words, and insider coded language.

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

#90

Post by lowdownbutter »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #50
asimovfan wrote: post #45

Earlier 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.

You've reminded me of this -

> The Brits often assume that Germans have no sense of humour. In truth, writes comedian Stewart Lee, it's a language problem. The peculiarities of German sentence construction simply rule out the lazy set-ups that British comics rely on ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/23/germany.featur...

Post reply on HN