Live data from Hacker News

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

ribbonfarm.com

121–130 of 174 posts

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

#121
post #107
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds more like "peace through superior firepower" rather than "war is peace".

Can we be literal? It means peace through using superior firepower to kill people.

Sure, but it's not equating the states of war and peace, but asserting that war is a method for achieving peace, presumably when everyone on the other side is incapable or undesirous of attacking or threatening same.

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

#122
post #120

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.

Fully agreed. I think "Loser" is a misnomer. And indeed, going by the essay, the Sociopaths can also lose big... they are willing to risk it all for personal gain, but it can end very badly for them if they miss their window, their manipulations get exposed, or decide to do illegal things to get ahead (high profile cases in my mind: Enron, Epstein, etc).

The names come from a cartoon that predates Rao's essay. He simply reused them because they mostly work. Just like the Sociopaths are not all literal sociopaths, the Losers are not all literal losers.

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

#123
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully agreed. I think "Loser" is a misnomer. And indeed, going by the essay, the Sociopaths can also lose big... they are willing to risk it all for personal gain, but it can end very badly for them if they miss their window, their manipulations get exposed, or decide to do illegal things to get ahead (high profile cases in my mind: Enron, Epstein, etc).

The names come from a cartoon that predates Rao's essay. He simply reused them because they mostly work. Just like the Sociopaths are not all literal sociopaths, the Losers are not all literal losers.

Yes, I understand this. I was simply making this explicit, it was a good idea to clarify that neither Losers nor Sociopaths match the common definition of those terms.

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

#124
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…

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.

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

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the reason that English speakers swap ie/ei is that the pronunciations of these is not really consistent in English (at least in the American accent I speak), and I can't think of any words where both orderings exist but have different meanings. So the general impression I have about this is that I know there are supposed to be rules about it, but it seems pretty arbitrary and unimportant semantically.

Frahnken-STEEN vs Franken-STINE

Exactly, Americans do use both pronunciations .

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

#126

This essay was my bible at Google. It openly matched internal hierarchy and our own secret GDNA testing results illustrated it directly showing VP and above scored highly on the need to dominate over discover truth etc. The problem was to my existential horror: i couldn’t use this knowledge to get anywhere beyond clueless. Because super large western organizations either purposefully hide information or are full of s…

As the essay points out, we losers have only two paths out of loserdom. The first is to leverage sociopathic tendencies, to scheme and maneuver and accrue power (probably as a minion to an actual sociopath, I don’t think transformation happens except at the early stage of a career). The second is to check out and coast, tacitly improving our position without actually striking a new bargain or finding any safety. My o…

Man does this hit home.

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

#127
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing hard things is tautologically good.

> Doing hard things is tautologically good. Bahaha yeah overwork is virtue, sure

I didn't say anything about "overwork." No need to make assumptions (or just make things up).

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

#128
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the use of "literally" here, and the use of quotes, meant to be taken literally (as in, he literally said this)? Or is this the sense of "literally" which actually means "figuratively"?

A post to the Truth Social account for Donald Trump included: "The heavy and pinpoint bombing, however, will continue, uninterrupted throughout the week or, as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!" That's the closest thing I'm finding. Not seeing reporting that he literally said "war is peace".

Beatings will continue until morale improves?

You can't make this up.

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

#129
well, i guess this has been posted on hn before, but i've never read it, so thanks for posting again. i'm glad i spent most of my work day reading it instead of doing work (but maybe just because some of the conclusions helped me rationalize the futility of my own job in a way i've been struggling with lately).

the part near the end discussing the loser's realization and process of transitioning into sociopath (or ending up "worse" than before) reminded me of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. it's been over a decade since i read it but i think the underlying idea is fairly similar to that process.

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

#130
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I've seen many, many times. 1. business people sold themselves as the best to manage companies and took over companies (just like lawyers do in governments), changing the norm from decades ago when it was more likely for engineers to run companies than some kind of McKinsey guy 2. but they have no idea besides business/money metrics so they quickly become overwhelmed and decide based on who makes the most compel…

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…

In case you are serious, engineers were most likely to lead companies until the 70s. In some countries they still are. The negotiated middle ground was engineer + MBA. But even those are kind of going out of fashion and instead there are marketing/HR/accounting + MBA filling up boards and leadership.
Post reply on HN