Live data from Hacker News

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

ribbonfarm.com

41–50 of 174 posts

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

#41
Ironically the original Office, featuring Ricky Gervais, has a much better and more nuanced implicit theory of management than this.

Brent (Gervais) is neither a sociopath nor the top dog he thinks he is, he's a middle manager who it's implied was legitimately good at sales, but is not at all good at the role he's been promoted into because it's a completely different one.

The actual upper management, sociopathic or not, are certainly not scouring the underlings for underperforming sociopaths phoning it in to promote (imagine Keith being promoted!), and are actually more interested in making them redundant to make efficiency savings. We don't see senior management at all, they don't see most of the employees at all and they clearly don't have much idea what's going on, initially considering promoting Brent (because he applies for it and can bluff his way through an interview) but then in the second season bringing in Neil to oversee him and get rid of him (because they've started paying attention). Neil is obviously more socially adept which is probably why he's been promoted higher at a younger age, but he also appears to be actually good at his job. On the other hand, Gareth whose career appears to have topped out at assistant to the Regional Manager, ends up getting Brent's middle management job though he has zero social skills and actually liked the guy whose seat he takes, because he wants it, he grafts and he's there. Most of the others in the office neither work particularly hard nor particularly care for seeking promotion. And it's a paper company, they don't exactly have many ways to identify high performers anyway and the really ambitious and talented people are elsewhere.

(We don't see the people at the top at all, but they probably went to the right school, started in middle management somewhere else and hopped jobs adding bullet points of performance they can claim credit for to their CV until they got C-suite titles and compensation)

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

#42

See the Scott Alexander review: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-gervais-pri...

Liked this comment: "If we could convince [any] Sociopath that we were all Losers, we might be able to entice them into spilling their secrets as 'Straighttalk'. (Arguably that's what this book is..)" On one hand Rao doesn't say much about Gametalk (he basically defers to Eric Berne) which is the Loser's sociolect and should well be our default. On the other, Rao much more optimistic than Orwell, who declared doubles…

> On the other, Rao much more optimistic than Orwell, who declared doublespeak the lingua franca?

If time travel were possible, one of the first things I'd do is introduce Orwell to the 'algospeak' of today. This would do two things, firstly it'd show him a decent piece of evidence that Newspeak isn't as effective a tool for limiting human thought as he believed, and secondly he'd have to write another version of Politics and the English Language aimed at the language sins of attention economy era social media.

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

#43
I find all these principles to be wrong. Having worked in many companies of many sizes in many industries, there's a more variable distribution of characteristics of office workers. They can be sociopathic, empathic, competent, incompetent, kind, mean, sincere, duplicitous, flexible, inflexible, passionate, aloof, personable, antisocial, motivated, unmotivated, productive, unproductive. And they're always a mix of these things.

Some people are promoted without reaching their level of incompetence. Some leaders are actually empathetic. Some middle managers are effective. And some low-level grunts are consciously and happily both productive and exploited without desire for more. Granted, they're in the minority, but they do exist. I would rather there be language to describe and venerate these people, than to paint the whole world with a pessimistic brush.

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

#44
post #3

The 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 exi…

Illuminatus! is one of those works where there's a decent chance this is just a mistake or oversight, but also a decent chance this is exactly what the authors intended. You never can quite tell, and they definitely liked that.

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

#45
post #3

The 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 exi…

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.

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

#46
post #12

I 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.

It is perhaps crucial to note that Venkat Rao, the author, himself found an escape from the system under study here; he’s been consulting or otherwise feral for about 15 years.

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

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Berne books Rao cites as explanations of Gametalk are solidly good entries in of themselves, although it's probably best to use an LLM to get search results of the best introductions to TA first to see if they've been surpassed.

Adhering to the predictable/ritualistic/comfortable nature of "Gametalk", Here's one question I asked: "How does Eric Berne's Gametalk as interpreted by Venkatesh Rao signal to the sociopaths that those who engage in them are losers worth talking to? Distinguish between "channels" that Eric has identified as well as new signals that Rao or others have discovered." https://youtu.be/9B3oem_56jg?t=52s

Can you expand on your included youtube link? It's not clear the relationship.

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

#48

I find all these principles to be wrong. Having worked in many companies of many sizes in many industries, there's a more variable distribution of characteristics of office workers. They can be sociopathic, empathic, competent, incompetent, kind, mean, sincere, duplicitous, flexible, inflexible, passionate, aloof, personable, antisocial, motivated, unmotivated, productive, unproductive. And they're always a mix of th…

[deleted]

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

#50
post #5

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. They saw their parents do The Office in real life. Interesting is also that Michael does make a really good arc from season one to when he leaves. He remains clueless, or rather he it dawns on him he does not want to become like Ryan or David (the articles soc…

> 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 anything other than money is in the companies interest - they want people to be happy with vibes-as-compensation instead of money-as-compensation!

---------------

EDIT: I meant to say Clueless, not "losers".

Post reply on HN