61–70 of 174 posts
The distinction between losers, clueless and sociopaths has been very useful in my career. It made me recognize how many times I, or people I know, was the weakest link in the chain, the clueless. So have been the many examples of power talk and the importance of information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
Are you seriously equating the modern office and work, where, you know, you can go home after, to life as a slave on a plantation? Sure, analogies can have factors at different scales but the scales come into the equation when the factor is the axis we are analyzing. Is your issue that life requires action to maintain it? Do you believe no work is required at all in life? The idea that work is like slavery is deep wh…
I didn't know that American Slavery was the benchmark by which we can use that word. If I'm not literally being whipped I can't use that word now?
How about servitude? Subjugation? Yoked? What is acceptable now?
From 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.
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…
From 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…
Also I don't think either is true in general, but it is partially true in fundamentally social regimes like sales an bureaucracy where mother nature isn't involved so truth isn't a major factor in success.
I think critics use the word "moron" too often to mean "someone whose intelligence is different from mine, and doesn't have a respect for truth as a universal principle". Ladder climbing "sociopaths" apply their intelligence to social puzzles that many engineers and scientists ignore or don't understand. And some people are smart but also bullies, and dominate people who might be smarter. That's different from being a dumb bully.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 right time to speak up about something that's wrong is always NOW. Why? Because if you knew and didn't say something at the earliest possible moment you will get blamed for inaction later. If you don't say something when you see something is wrong, never say anything about it (at all). Otherwise you're asking for trouble later when the shit eventually hits the fan. "You knew and didn't say anything‽" Even if some…
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…
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…
The malaise afflicting Gen Z is more- secular- than cultural, I fear. The endpoint of economic trends.
Lots of word salad in this nonsensical write up anyway, but the author lost all credibility when he said that David Wallace is an ubersociopath.
This one got me interested. Can you elaborate? It is a show, but there is absolutely plenty of evidence within the show to support that claim.
There was plenty of evidence that Jan was a sociopath, or Ryan (obviously), but David had quite literally 0 sociopathic tendencies. Plus, this author said something about how David (and Jan) were both 'clueless' about Michael's incompetence, so it isn't like you can argue that David knew he was incompetent but tried to get him promoted to corporate anyway (which would obviously have been manipulative, although that alone wouldn't make him a sociopath).
When Dwight did random crazy shit, like set a fire in the office to do fire safety awareness day, David told him straight up that he couldn't do that and why. At no time did David display a lack of social skills, lack of empathy, or antisocial behaviour (except for a bit after he gets fired and prior to starting up Suck It). The most you could probably say there is that when Michael and Holly were forced apart (Holly back to Nashua), David was a bit muted - but even then, he tried to send Michael on a vacation (which got Michael laid in the end), even though the episode ends with Michael raging at David.
I'm happy to hear what the 'plenty of evidence' is.