This is broadly accurate, but if anyone feels like freaking out and quickly needs an antidote to the "high" class of sociopath grifters, perhaps could find some solitude in Wim Wenders' Perfect Days for a few hours.
The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
31–40 of 174 posts
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#32From what I have observed. Quiet people who speak sense and don't get involved in arguments, never rise to the top, whereas those loud morons almost certainly do. Often because those quiet people think they'll be less shouty, nagging. As long as the quiet ones can get on with the job and the loud pricks don't interfere, it makes the organisation dysfunctionally work. That said, world would be much nicer if these types could be just sacked. They don't contribute anything but increase stress and eat the salary budget that otherwise could be redistributed to the rest of the productive workers.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#33From what I have observed. Quiet people who speak sense and don't get involved in arguments, never rise to the top, whereas those loud morons almost certainly do. Often because those quiet people think they'll be less shouty, nagging. As long as the quiet ones can get on with the job and the loud pricks don't interfere, it makes the organisation dysfunctionally work. That said, world would be much nicer if these type…
The quiet ones need to learn to speak up when they have something important to add. Just sitting there quietly and not speaking, not participating in discussions, and not speaking up when something is wrong, is NOT noble.
"Quiet" people who know when to speak absolutely rise above anyone else, in a professional setting, in my experience.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#34Lots of word salad in this nonsensical write up anyway, but the author lost all credibility when he said that David Wallace is an ubersociopath.
Better at hiding it. The sociopaths aren't 'obvious', they put on a mask, and the better the mask, the more they look normal.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#35I liked that model a lot, but it made me a bit sad too. All my life I was bad at being a loser, somehow I never really felt I fit in. I thought this was because of psychopathic tendencies or something. However, after reading this I realized there was another option and I was just clueless.
I've always been a clued-in loser because I lack the sociopathy to get promoted :(
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#36[flagged]
I don't think those two things are alike at all, unfortunately, however "cool" it feels to make such an analogy. Perhaps it's worth going and reading about actual slavery and what it was like.
Either side of an analogy can have factors at different scales. But it can still be a valid analogy.
If you are saying that because slavery was much worse, then modern slaves should just suck it up and work harder. Then that isn't really helping is it?
This is kind of the argument "others have had it worse, so lets not try to make anything better for people today".
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#37From what I have observed. Quiet people who speak sense and don't get involved in arguments, never rise to the top, whereas those loud morons almost certainly do. Often because those quiet people think they'll be less shouty, nagging. As long as the quiet ones can get on with the job and the loud pricks don't interfere, it makes the organisation dysfunctionally work. That said, world would be much nicer if these type…
The quiet ones need to learn to speak up when they have something important to add. Just sitting there quietly and not speaking, not participating in discussions, and not speaking up when something is wrong, is NOT noble. "Quiet" people who know when to speak absolutely rise above anyone else, in a professional setting, in my experience.
The problem is knowing the "when", or better yet choosing the "right" one. Don't ask me about these targets I have on my back.
Many times and in many orgs, the window to speak up opens too seldomly and it's barely cracked open...
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#38From what I have observed. Quiet people who speak sense and don't get involved in arguments, never rise to the top, whereas those loud morons almost certainly do. Often because those quiet people think they'll be less shouty, nagging. As long as the quiet ones can get on with the job and the loud pricks don't interfere, it makes the organisation dysfunctionally work. That said, world would be much nicer if these type…
The quiet ones need to learn to speak up when they have something important to add. Just sitting there quietly and not speaking, not participating in discussions, and not speaking up when something is wrong, is NOT noble. "Quiet" people who know when to speak absolutely rise above anyone else, in a professional setting, in my experience.
I see your naive opinion attracted lots of negativity. In perfect world decades ago the quiet ones had a chance. With right approach and good timing it worked very well: https://www.bmwblog.com/2025/02/10/bmw-3-series-touring-hist... And that was seen in German economy growth. Now it’s completely different. Result is secondary, process is most important: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/munich-...
Now it’s noise and screaming. You can speak up, result will be the same as if you would do that in the forest. Loud bullshiters will be promoted. Your technical opinion with properly perceived problems will be discarded as stupid. Welcome in the age of noise. And it also reflects in the current German economy and probably politics too.
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think those two things are alike at all, unfortunately, however "cool" it feels to make such an analogy. Perhaps it's worth going and reading about actual slavery and what it was like.
perhaps is doing a lot of massaging there
I love me a good massage
Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
#40The MacLeod Life Cycle reminds me on the 5 seasons of the illuminati calendar: Verwirrung Season of Chaos January 1-March 14 Zweitracht Season of Discord March 15-May 26 Unordnung Season of Confusion May 27-August 7 Beamtenherrschaft Season of Bureaucracy August 8-October 19 Grummet Season of Aftermath October 20-December 31 From the book Illuminatus!
The translations make no sense to a German native speaker. The list even swap meanings, i.e. between confusion and clutter.
Accurate translations are:
Verwirrung = Confusion
Zwietracht = Discord
You swapped i and e; somehow English speakders do this to German words all of the time. The 'ie' in here is a long 'i'.
Zweitracht on the other hand would mean a "double traditional costume", if that word existed (it does exist in theory, it is just then number two [Zwei] and the noun for a traditional costume [Tracht] strung together; would be a great name for a German shop that sells used/pre-owned traditional costumes btw.)
Unordnung = Clutter
Beamtenherrschaft = Rule of the public servant class
Grummet = Second hay harvest