Live data from Hacker News

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

ribbonfarm.com

71–80 of 174 posts

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

#71

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…

The tools of slavery have evolved but the overall end goal has not. The almost cliché slavery depiction of the chain and whip had evolved into the coolie system, the offshoring system and the kafeel system. The office is simply a part of that family of exploitation methods. There is a difference between serving the collective good and being a slave.

Many of us want to work on something greater than ourselves, to contribute to society not out of selfishness or lifestyle, but to genuinely help society function and make people happy. Many of us aspire to make a small dent in the universe with something great, something that can stand the test of time, building a thing in defiance of our own mortality in the hopes that our ancestors remember us, learn from us and run with the torch of civilization, to improve the human project to a level of greatness that we may ourselves never witness. In a way, to create is one of the highest forms of self expression as a human.

This is entirely different from reality, where retirements are wiped out by financial sorcerers, after decades of fulfilling your end of the social contract, trading in your productive years to a company that _does not care about you OR your community_, where run away inflation, debt and taxation are used to funnel capital to other competing nations or a unwitting fifth column whether that is transmigrasi in Indonesia, the influx of Indians in Texas or the mass refugee stream to Europe caused by US-Israeli inflicted wars, which has already surpassed in numbers the transatlantic slave trade, the endless wars that balance domestic unrest with a common enemy to rally around the flag, and the accompanied transfer of wealth across nations as these warmongers decide which country gets axed to serve the greater powers. There is no saving for retirement, there is no freedom, there is only bondage, death and taxes.

Meanwhile, the collective fruit of western society is plundered through the illegal pirating of the intellectual output of millions of creatives who poured everything they have in it, and it is plundered by the very same class of people that sued common folk for pirating software, music, movies and books. Aaron Swartz would roll over in his grave to see how the government supports companies like Google, OpenAI and Anthropic who rely on plagiarizing IP at scale.

The collective fruit of an entire civilization’s labor is plundered before your very eyes right before they launch it into a cataclysmic war that wipes away the very people who dedicated their lives to the sciences and humanities in order to further the human project. To deal such a low blow is an atrocity that is worse in its impact than the plantation system, it is reminiscent of the bronze age collapse that leveled ancient Egypt.

No good deed goes unpunished, as Ozymandius found out the hard way.

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

#72

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…

> Peter Turchins elite over production is my new nightmare

The Lamborgini Urus is a sign of the apocalypse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6_Z0yGwtx0

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

#73
post #33

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.

Being able to yell and scream and be loud yet choosing to be calm and quiet can be noble in the right circumstances. Being quiet and timid because that's all you're capable of doing is simply being ineffectual and weak and isn't noble even when being calm and quiet is the right thing to do.

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

#74

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…

I resonate with your comment but completely reject the conclusion. Death is inevitable, who cares how high you climbed on a ladder you didn't define? Why is that meaningful? Money is nice, dont get me wrong, but to value the climbing itself?

Doing hard things is tautologically good.

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

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Pol…

and then I'd show him a news broadcast from last week, where the president of the United States of America literally said "War is peace".

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

#76

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…

[deleted]

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

#77

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 own losing trap, which I think is common, is to try to periodically make sense of the organization and map a logical path forward for myself. This never works. My career progress in the organization has actually come about through sheer accident and/or lucky association.

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

#78

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.

have anything to read more about the power talk stuff?

Not really to be honest because the framework under which Venkatesh Rao talks about power talk is a bit different than how most sociologists see power talk.

Sociologists focus on tone, Rao focuses on the content.

In The Gervais Principle information is a currency and treated as negotiation leverage. You never give it for free, unless strictly in the boundaries of your job. Thus, under this lens, you collect as much information and never give it away for free.

Suppose you're a software engineer and a service you work on is slow.

There's two ways you can go about it:

"Our API has a 300ms+ latency, I have some ideas on how to fix it" -> giving information, and work for free. You're in the loser/clueless category.

Which of those depends on your awareness: are you aware of the political game and ignore it and focus on the craft? Loser. Are you not aware of the political game and try to do "what's best for the team/company"? You're clueless.

Then there's the sociopath's version:

"We may have a performance issues affecting reliability. Before we go deeper, we should decide who owns performance optimization."

This is power talk. Even if you don't own the performance optimization you still:

- communicated that you hold information others don't

- you're setting the tone and direction of the meeting

At this point somebody may raise the point of "which performance issues?" and here the hard part begins, how do you navigate and play the game? Are you prepared to motivate why ownership comes before information?

In the end, probably the best way to learn power talk in the context of the Gervais principle is to experiment, observe and study. Because no other sociologists has focused on it with Rao's angle.

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

#79

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…

I resonate with your comment but completely reject the conclusion. Death is inevitable, who cares how high you climbed on a ladder you didn't define? Why is that meaningful? Money is nice, dont get me wrong, but to value the climbing itself?

It’s interesting. That’s all. Boredom is death for me.
Post reply on HN