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

161–170 of 174 posts

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

#161

Post by randallsquared »

tovej wrote: post #160
randallsquared wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just not relevant to the statement "I'm punching until they can't punch back" who threw the first punch.

I'm not sure I follow. What I mean is that it makes no sense to say you're fighting a war to achieve peace if you're the one who started the war, breaking the peace that existed before then. If peace is your goal, then the status quo was already in line with your goal. Starting the war contradicts your stated goal of peace. Do I really have to spell all that out?

There are at least two ways to view this in the "war for peace" proponents' favor, I think:

First, it could be that you believe that war is already happening. In this case, Israel and other opponents of Iran might think that the status quo was a shadow war, and they are just continuing the war in a way that is to their advantage.

Second, even if peace technically exists at the moment, one side might believe that the other is moving toward war, and if allowed to complete preparations, will be significantly harder to overcome when they start a war in the future. In that case, preemptive war might be thought to engender peace in the medium or long term.

We don't have to agree with these casus bellis to acknowledge that they are at least superficially reasonable justifications, presuming they fit the facts.

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

#162

Post by tovej »

randallsquared wrote: post #161
tovej wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow. What I mean is that it makes no sense to say you're fighting a war to achieve peace if you're the one who started the war, breaking the peace that existed before then. If peace is your goal, then the status quo was already in line with your goal. Starting the war contradicts your stated goal of peace. Do I really have to spell all that out?

There are at least two ways to view this in the "war for peace" proponents' favor, I think: First, it could be that you believe that war is already happening. In this case, Israel and other opponents of Iran might think that the status quo was a shadow war, and they are just continuing the war in a way that is to their advantage. Second, even if peace technically exists at the moment, one side might believe that the…

Right. Only problem is, I wouldn't usually take into account hypotheticals that don't match reality. And neither would any reasonable person.

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

#163

Post by prox »

the_af wrote: post #53
lelanthran wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That was a fun read, and it might even explain why a lot of Gen-z is opting out of any sort of career building, wanting values instead (or next to) a paycheck. Wouldn't that make them even bigger ~losers~ Clueless? The ~losers~ Clueless are strictly those who put in more effort than they get in return but who cannot see it! Putting in +25% extra into their job for a 5% promotion, for example. Putting in effort for…

> The losers are strictly those who put in more effort than they get in return but who cannot see it! I think those would be the losers who get promoted to clueless, at least in this metaphor. The losers who aren't clueless are putting in the bare minimum work that doesn't get them fired. If they overperform, they (according to the theory) get promoted. I fully agree this nasty "vibes-as-compensation" bullshit, "we'r…

My mention of Gen-Z wanting values is exactly them seeing the bullshit of the sociopaths at the top (and the crap like “we are a family”. Gen-Z sees through that fluff.

The values I mentioned in the top comment are exactly about having people at the top who actually give a damn, that guide or lead with empathy. That doesn’t mean they don’t have to make shitty decisions, it just means they give a damn.

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

#164

Post by prox »

dragonwriter wrote: post #93
Apocryphon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gen Y was supposed to be values-driven too, Gen X invented slackers and grunge who were all about authenticity, boomers were children of hippies, beatniks preceded hippies… The malaise afflicting Gen Z is more- secular- than cultural, I fear. The endpoint of economic trends.

> boomers were children of hippies The hippies largely were Boomers, not their children.

I think so too, like the tail end of the Boomers mostly.

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

#165

Post by markus_zhang »

orthoxerox wrote: post #142
markus_zhang wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious what’s the definition of “success” here? Getting promoted and getting a better compensation?

And self-actualization, if you're into that.

Yeah that's definitely a big success.

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

#166

Post by the_af »

lukas099 wrote: post #154
the_af wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this theory, the Clueless are the ones who suffer the most. They invest most, they care about made up goals nobody else cares about, they play by rules everyone else thinks are dumb, they feel loyal to a company that doesn't love them back, and because they are more invested in the company, they are the ones who feel the loss the most when the sociopaths pull the rug. I think it's actually the Losers who…

The Clueless is the person who actually believes his work makes a difference and wants to do a good job. Not necessarily a terrible way to live, although it should be acknowledged that the Loser frees up time and energy to devote to other things, notably family.

(According to the theory) it is a terrible way to live, because everything the Clueless believes is false.

The Clueless believe their work makes a difference, but it doesn't. They believe it matters they do a good job, but it doesn't truly matter except for the advancement and power plays of the Sociopaths. They believe themselves "company men", and are loyal to a company that despises them and sees them as completely expendable.

The Losers understand this, and therefore devote their energy to other things outside work, where they find meaning in life.

(Again, I understand this is what the theory states and doesn't necessarily reflect reality. But I do think there's a kernel of truth to it.)

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

#167

Post by the_af »

throw4847285 wrote: post #124
cshimmin wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah perhaps a better term for Loser is Abstainer. Because the Sociopaths also can certainly lose at the game of maximum capitalist profit. Loser/Abstainer just chooses not to play the game.

The problem with these theories is that they fall apart as soon as you start adding or modifying the types. Because they aren't actually correct, just simple and flattering.

I think it'd be more accurate to say that in their neat essay form they are incorrect/incomplete, but that there's a kernel of truth to them.

Essays like this want to package an idea into a nice, easy to understand thing that has some punch to it. Reality is more complex.

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

#168

Post by tsunamifury »

lukas099 wrote: post #153
tsunamifury wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a lie for smooth brains who think they’ve figured out the “hack” to the system. Usually resulting in living as if you worked a menial job not having a family and essentially working hard to not achieve anything. Then mostly living the rest of your life consuming your own smugness.

On the contrary, the frugal option is quite often the cooler, more fulfilling one: - riding a bike instead of driving (makes you fitter, hotter, increases mating potential) - cooking food (impressive to friends and potential mates, makes you and your family healthier) - building furniture, tech stuff, whatever (your stuff is customized to your own tastes and situation) - playing music in a band (get paid for a Saturd…

"just build your furniture and suddenly you'll have millions in the bank"

Guy... come on, he was talking about smug money FIRE types not 'living a meaningful life'. in fact they are usually the types that have no friends because it's expensive.

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

#169

Post by qnd »

Four years ago, this piece inspired me to write a blog post titled "The Stromberg Minset: On Germany's Geopolitical Delusion"

VR used the British Office as an analogy, Alex Danco used the American Office and I tried to showcase the German Office.

https://www.artlapinsch.com/stromberg/

Four years on and not much has changed from my analysis. Unfortunately.

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

#170

Post by zoeysmithe »

ajkjk wrote: post #131
zoeysmithe wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really ableist. Sociopaths? Most people in charge of running companies from top to mid-level are average people, even if some dark-triad coded people exist. What you're angry at is what capitalism is supposed to do: maximize value for the the capital owning class, that is to say ownership. There was never some engineer owned utopia. Business culture has always been this way, in fact, its only been worse in th…

What's the ableist angle here..?

Blaming the failings of capitalism on the mentally ill. This is just capitalism, it cannot be any different, this is fundamental to it.
Post reply on HN