The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk • Hacker News Board

Re: The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk

#11

Post by duh » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 6:19 PM UTC

DTrejo wrote: post #9

duh wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the third and most important reason of course, is that your moves have to be backed up by appropriate bets using your table stakes, exposing you to real risks and rewards This is the most important line of the article, in my opinion. First step to learning how to play this game is setting goals for yourself which will expose you to real risk if you were to try to achieve them in earnest. In the tech world the m…

Are you saying the recruiters manipulate developers into working for them?

Most of the time, yeah. The margins are massive. Most developers are terrible negotiators who roll over for $40-75/hour (and think they are getting a great deal), when recruiters and consulting firms routinely charge their clients $150+/hr on the back end. It's pretty easy to see why the word "loser" is used in the article to describe these people.

Re: The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk

#12

Post by gaius » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 6:27 PM UTC

duh wrote: post #11

DTrejo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the recruiters manipulate developers into working for them?

Most of the time, yeah. The margins are massive. Most developers are terrible negotiators who roll over for $40-75/hour (and think they are getting a great deal), when recruiters and consulting firms routinely charge their clients $150+/hr on the back end. It's pretty easy to see why the word "loser" is used in the article to describe these people.

You can use this to your advantage in permanent roles where the recruiter's cut is a percentage of your starting salary.

Re: The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk

#13

Post by duh » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 6:29 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #12

duh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the time, yeah. The margins are massive. Most developers are terrible negotiators who roll over for $40-75/hour (and think they are getting a great deal), when recruiters and consulting firms routinely charge their clients $150+/hr on the back end. It's pretty easy to see why the word "loser" is used in the article to describe these people.

You can use this to your advantage in permanent roles where the recruiter's cut is a percentage of your starting salary.

That's right, one of the first steps to becoming a ruthless sociopath is to align your interests with the right people. IT could learn a few things from the pro sports/entertainment worlds. A good engineer ("rockstar", as it were) can easily make their corporate overlords just as much money as a real rock star or pro athlete.

Re: The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk

#14

Post by zackattack » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 6:31 PM UTC

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #6

zackattack wrote: post #4

I was deeply upset by this on an emotional level, mostly because for all of my life, I have not had an intuitive hold of this kind of communication. Consequently, I have been operating on an entirely separate plane, making it difficult to relate to and understand other people. I would truly appreciate advice from someone who understands my situation. I am not interested in sympathy.

I think a lot of engineering types are out in the cold on this one. what helped me was studying acting (the art of believably imitating social situations). http://greenlightwiki.com/improv/Status start reading Robin Hanson's blog Overcoming Bias, he's an economics professor who posts a lot about signaling.

That article is tremendously helpful because I don't have a natural intuitive grasp of status. Thank you.

One thing that confuses me is when it's strategic to act high status, and when it's strategic to act low status. For example, sometimes, when you need something from someone - do you want to raise their status, and make them like you? Or do you want to convey high status, so they will want to associate with you? Or should you try to juggle raising your status and then lowering it, in order to achieve the illusion of parity?

E.g. Selling to a customer, getting a job, getting help with something in the workplace. . .

Somebody has got to have written something about this. Please help.

Re: The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk

#15

Post by Periodic » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 6:34 PM UTC

bluishgreen wrote: post #8

It is very good that Venkat(author) is introducing all these words and giving them solid definitions. It brings conversation to this new plane because we now have these words in our vocabulary. Great job, worth a careful read.

Very often a lot of management posts tend to be fairly short and be very heavy on jargon. It makes it hard for those who haven't been following the field for a while to follow along.

I also like the way he actually explains the connections to other books and posts when appropriate instead of just referencing them and assuming they have been read as I've seen some other authors do.

Re: The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk

#16

Post by nazgulnarsil » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 6:35 PM UTC

zackattack wrote: post #14

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of engineering types are out in the cold on this one. what helped me was studying acting (the art of believably imitating social situations). http://greenlightwiki.com/improv/Status start reading Robin Hanson's blog Overcoming Bias, he's an economics professor who posts a lot about signaling.

That article is tremendously helpful because I don't have a natural intuitive grasp of status. Thank you. One thing that confuses me is when it's strategic to act high status, and when it's strategic to act low status. For example, sometimes, when you need something from someone - do you want to raise their status, and make them like you? Or do you want to convey high status, so they will want to associate with you?…

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie.

the original. so lucid I doubt it will ever be dethroned as the best. hmm, can't find an online version right now even though I know multiple sites have a plain text version. anyone have a link?

a direct answer: I personally think it's better to act high status the vast majority of the time, only acting lower status when it is absolutely required. when I started doing this people's reaction to me immensely improved (night and day difference).

Re: The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk

#17

Post by zackattack » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 7:29 PM UTC

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #16

zackattack wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article is tremendously helpful because I don't have a natural intuitive grasp of status. Thank you. One thing that confuses me is when it's strategic to act high status, and when it's strategic to act low status. For example, sometimes, when you need something from someone - do you want to raise their status, and make them like you? Or do you want to convey high status, so they will want to associate with you?…

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. the original. so lucid I doubt it will ever be dethroned as the best. hmm, can't find an online version right now even though I know multiple sites have a plain text version. anyone have a link? a direct answer: I personally think it's better to act high status the vast majority of the time, only acting lower status when it is absolutely required. when I start…

Well, doesn't How to Win Friends and Influence People offer advice like sincere and lavish praise? That's low-status, unless coming from the position of an authority position (high-status).

Maybe I'll do some experiments.

Something else I am interested in is how social/contextual status subconsciously sabotages people in the context of sport or business.

Re: The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk

#18

Post by pchristensen » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 9:06 PM UTC

zackattack wrote: post #17

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. the original. so lucid I doubt it will ever be dethroned as the best. hmm, can't find an online version right now even though I know multiple sites have a plain text version. anyone have a link? a direct answer: I personally think it's better to act high status the vast majority of the time, only acting lower status when it is absolutely required. when I start…

Well, doesn't How to Win Friends and Influence People offer advice like sincere and lavish praise? That's low-status, unless coming from the position of an authority position (high-status). Maybe I'll do some experiments. Something else I am interested in is how social/contextual status subconsciously sabotages people in the context of sport or business.

(before I get started, I can't praise HTWFAIP enough - http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/articles/verifying-theories...)

It's not low status unless you overdo it. Everyone enjoys validation for what they do, and while some people get more praise than they want for some things they do ("Hey, Michael Jordan, great game!"), there are other parts of them that are starving. People are not monolithic, they're made of many facets.

One example from the book was of a guy who built theater seats trying to get a deal with a bigwig from Kodak. No one ever got to meet with Mr Bigwig for more than 5 minutes, and Mr. Theater had to wait months for his 5 min appt. When he went in, Bigwig was gruffly resistant to a sales pitch, but Theater first complimented his fine wood paneled office. That disarmed Bigwig and got him talking about how he used to really care about carpentry and craftsmanship but has been taken over too much by his work. Two hours of conversation, no mention of the theater, and next week Bigwig ordered the chairs for his new theater fro Mr Theater. Complimenting Bigwig's business acumen or wealth would have had no (or probably negative) effect, but there was another part of him that was starved for recognition.

Enough rambling, go read the book! You can find a pdf online if you poke around.

Re: The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk

#19

Post by nazgulnarsil » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 9:15 PM UTC

zackattack wrote: post #17

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. the original. so lucid I doubt it will ever be dethroned as the best. hmm, can't find an online version right now even though I know multiple sites have a plain text version. anyone have a link? a direct answer: I personally think it's better to act high status the vast majority of the time, only acting lower status when it is absolutely required. when I start…

Well, doesn't How to Win Friends and Influence People offer advice like sincere and lavish praise? That's low-status, unless coming from the position of an authority position (high-status). Maybe I'll do some experiments. Something else I am interested in is how social/contextual status subconsciously sabotages people in the context of sport or business.

agree with what pchristensen said. a lot of people read HTWFAIP and the next week they're smarmily complimenting everyone. when this doesn't work they assume the book is bull shit and go about their lives. this isn't how it works. the compliments have to be genuine. as mentioned in the anecdote, the compliment is just a way to segue from business into genuine engagement with the other person. this would never work if the compliment wasn't about something of substance.

anyhoo. the main thing I took from the book in combination with everything I've learned about behaviorism and cognitive bias leads me to believe that the underlying trick is to bolster people's internal narratives. everyone constructs a narrative of their life in which they're the hero, validating this narrative will win you loyalty like you wouldn't believe as deep down, it's a major part of what everyone wants.

Re: The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk

#20

Post by vgr » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 9:49 PM UTC

On both this piece and the earlier one, I was kinda surprised that startup/hacker types would be so interested. I guess my mental image of the audience here is younger, fresh-out-of-college entrepreneurial types. Perhaps I am wrong, and there is a good proportion of people with mature org. experience as well?

I am also surprised by the number of people who seem to think small/startup companies are immune to these dynamics :)

(p.s. I did spend 1 year as the first employee of a startup... I found the same dynamics to apply, mutatis mutandis). Anyway, thanks for reading and keep the great conversation on!

Venkat