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

Scott makes some good points but I think he simply lacks experience in the kind of big corporations Venkat describes. I think the Gervais Principle can be observed most readily in large, old-economy firms operating in zero-sum industries. It's probably more predominant on the east coast than the west coast, and even more predominant outside of the US. That's not to say that small, new-economy, west-coast, non-zero-sum companies won't demonstrate the same patterns, but they will almost certainly appear more weakly, in different forms. (And, of course, firms in the middle will show the same patterns in middling amounts.)

I first read these articles back in university, thought they were amazing mind-blowing red-pill insights, then promptly discovered on entering the working world that I had too little experience to utilise this kind of thinking.

A few years later I decided that a more principled, honest stance makes sense: be productive, set goals, figure out what you're doing before your do it, decide what you want and then go after it, don't take on work that you can't handle, etc. If you do that, you should be able to avoid politics (or so I thought). This strategy works very well... up to a point. However, after a few more years, and lots of reflection, I've realised that the dynamics Rao describes are visible in pretty much any group of people over a certain size. You just have to observe closely over a long period of time.

Even the most political workplace will look normal 90% of the time... the political interactions are subtle, ambiguous, and almost always inseparable from ongoing relationships or interpersonal dramas. Heck, 95% or more of "politicking" consists of interpersonal skills, "emotional awareness" and the ability to communicate. The Machiavellianism only really comes into play amongst people who've shown that they can do their jobs, have a decent circle of friends (or "friends") in the organisation, and have some idea of what they'd do with organisational power. These are the "table stakes" that Venkat refers to; before you obtain these, attempting to play the political game is pointless.

I concluded that up until the age of about 27-28, it's best to focus on building up your core skillset so that you can gain "table stakes". As a general rule, people under 25 can't beat people over 35 in political games, and shouldn't even try. (For people in-between, it's complicated.) However, over the age of about 28-30, understanding the political games suddenly becomes much, much more important. Even if you only want to use your powers for noble ends. (Example: supporting a junior employee who has unintentionally earned the disapproval of the boss.) With the context of a few years worth of work experience, Venkat's article makes a lot more sense. (Especially after sincerely attempting to walk the path of honesty, integrity and productivity, and observing its strengths and weaknesses.)

It's possible that Scott and his friends either work in very nice companies, or that that don't notice these dynamics going on around them. I have a simpler hypothesis: they're Losers (in Rao's sense) -- they might be well-paid losers, highly-educated losers, socially and financially successful losers, charming and sociable losers, but Losers nevertheless. When Rao calls someone a Loser, all he means is that they've given up on maximizing their potential wealth and power in exchange for a steady income (which may still be very high) and belonging to a particular crowd. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and for 90% of people, it's a reasonable trade.

There's no special pot of gold or magic crown you win by becoming a "sociopath". It simply means that you've decided to step outside of the box defined by the local social structure and to walk your own path. Whether that path is good or evil, logical or insane, spiritual or depraved, is from then on entirely up to you.

That said: based on what I've read about politicking in rationalist circles, and in EA circles, and at Google promotional reviews, and at other FAANGs, and at large silicon valley startups, and at small silicon valley startups, (and presumably amongst small indie bloggers who get targeted by the New York Times) I simply conclude that this kind of behaviour occurs all around Scott and that he simply isn't aware of it.

In my opinion it works just as well, without any of the negativity or cynicism of the original Gervais article.

[0]: https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/

It examines a particularly democratic union which seemed unusually able to withstand degeneration into an oligarchy.