4 ms·

This starts with: [..] the archetypes that inhabit organizations (Sociopaths, Losers, Clueless) ...which is quite clueless itself, and mean-spirited

• psyc 10y ago
  Counterpoint: this series is a brilliant classic.
• scandox 10y ago
  Isn't the whole thing an over extended joke based on The Office?
  • pasbesoin 10y ago
    Qualification: I need to re-read it and refresh my memory. That said, I think that for many, it's akin to the first time you take the/a Myers Briggs test. It may not be "scientific", but damn, does that summary strike home.
  • mamon 10y ago
    That was my interpretation of the whole series. The author however, seems to be dead serious about it, like he discovered true meaning of life.
    • tinym 10y ago
      He maintains that attitude deliberately (it's part of the joke).
    • norswap 10y ago
      If you read the comments (not specifically of this piece), you'll see it isn't so. It's meant as an amusing theory, where tidbits might be useful.
• to3m 10y ago
  Have you read the whole series?
• EdwardCoffin 10y ago
  Did you read the second paragraph: > For those who came in late: read Part I and Part II first, to avoid serious misunderstandings. or those parts, in which he defines those archetypes? The series is not really mean-spirited nor a libertarian fantasy. Edit: fixed typos
• beaconstudios 10y ago
  that was a... pretty contrived link. I'm not sure how pop pseudo-psychology has much to do with libertarianism.