4 ms·

This is how nonsense is written by smart people to bamboozle the rest. This is some truths, mixed with half truths, mixed with made up pop psychology, wrapped

This is how nonsense is written by smart people to bamboozle the rest. This is some truths, mixed with half truths, mixed with made up pop psychology, wrapped in a rug of made up bullshit, served on a platter of popular culture references for consumption by people that are starving for structure.

alexandercrohde 10y ago
"to bamboozle the rest." What do you mean by this? Do you suggest the author is trying to confuse/deceive people, because he clearly puts LOTS of work into his blog and I don't imagine he directly gets profit from it [so I have no idea what his motivation would be]. That's a very poetic criticism and all, but I guess it doesn't really mean anything. The situation is this: Many professionals (such as myself) find the world of business entirely irrational and unpredictable. Those like me are trying to make heads or tails of it and often just resort to humor (Dilbert, the Office, Silicon Valley) which gives us the simplistic narrative -> other people are crazy. But some of us know there's more to it than that, and are actually trying to wrap our heads around it. It's not clear if you don't think understanding work matters or if you think there's a better source of truth for explaining the massive irrationalities of work. Either way, poetry doesn't really establish or disprove anything. --- Edit: For those like me who are searching for patterns among the chaos of human group behavior, I suggest the books "Moral Mazes" and "Games People Play"
- Noxchi 10y ago
  He puts a lot of work trying to weasel out a theory based on a caricuturized comedy. It reminded me of some ideas from socionics though, mainly how strengths and weaknesses create relationship types http://www.socionics.com/rel/rel.htm http://www.socionics.com/rel/rel.htm
  - Pyxl101 10y ago
    That wasn't how I understood it. Rather, my impression is that the theory is not based on the comedy, but is rather explained using the language and situations of the comedy.
- ryanx435 10y ago
  another good book recommendation for trying to understand the chaos of human group behavior that focuses on leaders and how they lead is "the dictators handbook: why bad behavior is almost always good politics." by alastair smith and bruce mesquita.
psyc 10y ago
By "this", you're cleverly alluding to your own comment, correct?
norswap 10y ago
It is a model, so obviously wrong, but it can still be useful. It's presented in an entertaining manner (at least to some of us). The whole "Gervais Principle" thing is a model, but this part in particular highlights the curse of development, which is a very specific and useful model. It essentially says that in an argument, you have to be much more knowledgeable/experienced than your interlocutor, in order to be able to confidently put down the wrong arguments he makes confidently. It is widely applicable: from teaching computer science to discussing politics.
teslaberry 10y ago
the use of the label 'sociopath' is pretty much a dead give away not to bother reading this kind of gladwellian crap. best sellers appeal to the lowest common denominator same as pop music, goes pop writing, all for pop consumption . popular thinking is barely thinking at all.

alexandercrohde 10y ago

"to bamboozle the rest." What do you mean by this? Do you suggest the author is trying to confuse/deceive people, because he clearly puts LOTS of work into his blog and I don't imagine he directly gets profit from it [so I have no idea what his motivation would be]. That's a very poetic criticism and all, but I guess it doesn't really mean anything. The situation is this: Many professionals (such as myself) find the world of business entirely irrational and unpredictable. Those like me are trying to make heads or tails of it and often just resort to humor (Dilbert, the Office, Silicon Valley) which gives us the simplistic narrative -> other people are crazy. But some of us know there's more to it than that, and are actually trying to wrap our heads around it. It's not clear if you don't think understanding work matters or if you think there's a better source of truth for explaining the massive irrationalities of work. Either way, poetry doesn't really establish or disprove anything. --- Edit: For those like me who are searching for patterns among the chaos of human group behavior, I suggest the books "Moral Mazes" and "Games People Play"

Noxchi 10y ago
He puts a lot of work trying to weasel out a theory based on a caricuturized comedy. It reminded me of some ideas from socionics though, mainly how strengths and weaknesses create relationship types http://www.socionics.com/rel/rel.htm http://www.socionics.com/rel/rel.htm
- Pyxl101 10y ago
  That wasn't how I understood it. Rather, my impression is that the theory is not based on the comedy, but is rather explained using the language and situations of the comedy.
ryanx435 10y ago
another good book recommendation for trying to understand the chaos of human group behavior that focuses on leaders and how they lead is "the dictators handbook: why bad behavior is almost always good politics." by alastair smith and bruce mesquita.

psyc 10y ago

By "this", you're cleverly alluding to your own comment, correct?

norswap 10y ago

It is a model, so obviously wrong, but it can still be useful. It's presented in an entertaining manner (at least to some of us). The whole "Gervais Principle" thing is a model, but this part in particular highlights the curse of development, which is a very specific and useful model. It essentially says that in an argument, you have to be much more knowledgeable/experienced than your interlocutor, in order to be able to confidently put down the wrong arguments he makes confidently. It is widely applicable: from teaching computer science to discussing politics.

teslaberry 10y ago

the use of the label 'sociopath' is pretty much a dead give away not to bother reading this kind of gladwellian crap. best sellers appeal to the lowest common denominator same as pop music, goes pop writing, all for pop consumption . popular thinking is barely thinking at all.