121–130 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
For not reading the sibling's response, you really nailed the reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Losers like to feel good about their lives. They are the happiness seekers, rather than will-to-power players, and enter and exit reactively, in response to the meta-Darwinian trends in the economy. But they have no more loyalty to the firm than the Sociopaths. They do have a loyalty to individual people, and a commitment to finding fulfillment through work when they can, and coasting when they cannot.
This is the main annoyance I had that turned me off this theory. Not playing a game may be technically "losing" the game, but empathizing that part gives the game undue importance in the big picture, instead of looking for what actually is important.
(agree - looks like reality is more complex)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well these observations have nothing with to do with the main conundrum - How do you keep a group of chimps who all have different interests, personalities, needs, beliefs, values, upbringings, culture, religion, language, history etc etc in sync? And these days groups grow quite large quite fast. Historically, if you take rewards, bribery, force, domination and manipulation out of the story, the babblers/non threate…
I think you missed the point of the GP: Venkatesh Rao has written so much posts around this idea that he's now positioned himself as an authority on the topic of workplace power dynamics, regardless of if what he wrote is actually accurate or not. He is also quite fond of using poorly defined (in this context) words like "dialectical" and "illegibility" that makes the reader doubt whether he's actually full of shit o…
From TFA... "The Gervais Principle is this: Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves."
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
> Today, any time an organization grows too brittle, bureaucratic and disconnected from reality, it is simply killed, torn apart and cannibalized, rather than reformed. I actually think the overall argument of the essay makes more sense when you realize the above comment actually isn't true for the large majority of organizations. Universities, government agencies, big tech monopolies, public sector unions, complacen…
> Today, any time an organization grows too brittle, bureaucratic and disconnected from reality, it is simply killed, torn apart and cannibalized, rather than reformed. I actually think the overall argument of the essay makes more sense when you realize the above comment actually isn't true for the large majority of organizations. Universities, government agencies, big tech monopolies, public sector unions, complacen…
Can you give examples of zombie institutions?
so: Harvard, FDA, Google, American Postal Workers Union, State Farm. Also banks, I would say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Some unsolicited advice from the internet: take some time to learn a skill or decorate your house or something. If you have slack in your schedule and can't see a way to utilise it at work towards a promotion, then maybe investing in things outside of work might be fun?
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
You might be inverting cause and effect.