5 ms·

Interesting. Anecdotally, this checks out. All of my middle/lower-middle class friends from high school have long been married and raising families, almost in a

Interesting. Anecdotally, this checks out. All of my middle/lower-middle class friends from high school have long been married and raising families, almost in all cases raising them with their extended families. Most of my professional tech friends are barely getting started in their late 30s, and everyone who's started had basically put their career into a slower gear first. I made a similar choice a couple of years ago to downgrade my career into a slower-paced, less stressful scenario with less money, and again personally for me the results have spoken for themselves. Unless I'm Elon Musk, the whole business of business isn't really designed in my favor, so it's logical for me to partake but only just so.

zwkrt 7y ago
You have assumed the role of the loser, as per https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... It feels nice down here, join us!
- LordFast 7y ago
  Love it! https://206hwf3fj4w52u3br03fi242-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/compLifeCycle.JPG https://206hwf3fj4w52u3br03fi242-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...
- dondawest 7y ago
  No way man, I bet if we found out the specifics we’d both deem him “clueless” on the GP hierarchy. Unless he literally works in a warehouse or in a position that is pure “worker bee,” $100 says if we knew the actual job title this guy held we’d deem him “clueless.” (Not that he actually IS clueless, who knows, I’m just using that word in the gervais principle sense of it). “I made a similar choice a couple of years ago to downgrade my career into a slower-paced, less stressful scenario with less money” is quintessential “clueless” reasoning. Prioritizing things like a slow pace and a lack of stress is something that “clueless” people tend to do, not “losers.” Darryl (& co) in the warehouse are stressed, dude, and they don’t have the time or inclination to prioritize things like lowering stress. They’re too busy living paycheck-to-paycheck. Toby in the office is less stressed, and I bet if you talked to the character Toby he’d say almost exactly what the guy wrote above. I mean look what he’s doing here — sharing his emotional reasoning with the group. That’s something “clueless” people do, not “losers,” who tend to merely act on emotions rather than reflect on them and THEN act. If this guy ACTUALLY became a “loser” and started working in an Amazon warehouse and it wasn’t part of a larger “clueless” meta-scheme to get a tax break or something, I would be literally shocked.
  - war1025 7y ago
    Your reading of that hierarchy is different from what I got out of it. Clueless are people buy into the "Arbeit makt frei" idea. In the linked article, the majority of people in the office (not even considering the warehouse) are losers. Stanley is the quintessential "loser", and he precisely optimizes for "slower-paced, less stressful". In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's the "worker bees" that are clueless. Dwight, for example, is as "worker bee" as they come. He jumps on command. From my reading, this hierarchy has nothing to do with social status outside of work. It is precisely how you behave on the job.
    - dondawest 7y ago
      I agree that many worker bees are “clueless” but that breaks the GP heuristics. My reading seems similar but different to yours. I agree that it has nothing to do with social status outside of work: to me it’s about emotional processing. I can’t recall the specific passage but I remember Venkat talking about how clueless people seek absolution in collective emotional processing. That’s what leads me to believe the dude you’re replying to is clueless. I completely disagree that Stanley is a loser, to me he is a quintessential clueless. He’s working in the office, not the warehouse: he’s in middle management, so IMO he’s clueless by definition because he is part of the padding between the masters/sociopaths/bosses and the slaves/worker bees/losers. I think your perspective is interesting but I feel like I am adhering slightly more strictly to the heuristics laid out in GP.
      - war1025 7y ago
        Directly from the article: """ The minimum-effort Loser Stanley tells him coldly, "this here is a run-out-the-clock situation." The line could apply to Stanley’s entire life. """ So either you are pulling your info from some more-original source than I am, or you're mis-remembering what the article says.
        dondawest 7y ago
        Then venkat’s own model is self-contradictory. He states clearly that middle managers provide the buffer between the sociopaths and losers. Thus, Stanley is clueless. Venkat’s description of Stanley as a “loser” completely destroys his own heuristics that only clueless are in middle management. So congratulations, you’ve found a flaw in Venkat’s logic. He contradicts himself. However, I still think the general heuristics he lays out are valuable (as you seem to). Thanks for the quote man — you made me realize the issue isn’t quite as cut-and-dry as I thought it was. I see your point now. Thank you.
- chongli 7y ago
  The 3 layer hierarchy which seems to be a cornerstone for that piece's thesis is just a restatement of the structure of The Party from Orwell's 1984, applied to companies rather than all of society. It is an interesting way to look at organizations though.
oposa 7y ago
By definition you wouldn't know many lonely people. The chronically lonely ones are going to be the people who didn't end up getting married when they "should" have, couldn't make it into a proper career or fell out of one at some point. Most upper middle class people won't be lonely since if you can afford a career you can afford a social life or you might even be forced into one. But of course uncertainty and insecurity can make one feel lonely, so I guess that would count. Still that isn't going to be your epidemic. That is going to be those left behind.
- j2bax 7y ago
  This makes me think of a good friend from college that I lost touch with, who recently committed suicide. I felt a significant amount of guilt, thinking about the fact that I could have very easily stayed in touch with him, despite not living anywhere close. Really made me think about people that I've had friendships with in the past that I may be able to reach out to and make a difference in their lives just by being the one person (or one of a few) that they talk to on a semi-frequent basis.
- watwut 7y ago
  It just does not work like that. Many people with stable jobs are lonely. Long hours means that you don't have connection with family even if you have it. You live separate life from partner and your children are not close to you. One partner working long hours is enough for both partners to be lonely in marriage. Partner having time consuming hobby is enough for you to be lonely in marriage. People in work are not friends, they are competitors, allies, enemies, whatever. They are not people you can talk with openly. Moreover, there are plenty of jobs where you work mostly alone or have only temporary relationships. End result is loneliness.
- LordFast 7y ago
  No denial from me that there's a problem. I wanted to jump in, however, and share some personal journeys. Maybe it will help one person, or not.
- badpun 7y ago
  > Most upper middle class people won't be lonely since if you can afford a career you can afford a social life or you might even be forced into one. Social life is not about having money (well unless you're really poor) - it's about having time and people to spend it with. You can be in top 5-10% of income and a total loner - plenty such people in tech.
cosmodisk 7y ago
What you described here is essentially 'survivorship bias'. Also,just because someone married away into a cosy suburb with 2 kids and a nice hubby,it doesn't mean they aren't lonely. There are millions of people out there who would kill for a chance to have someone outside that "perfect" life just to talk openly with... All those "desperate housewives" don't get created without reason.
- watwut 7y ago
  Suburbs and 2 kids are both isolating. Especially when kids are small.
  - war1025 7y ago
    Kids don't have to be isolating. You just have to adjust your life to do things that are if not kid-friendly, kid-accepting. Also have to get over the fear that people will judge you for taking your kids with you out into the world.
  - d1zzy 7y ago
    It depends on where you coming from. I agree that for someone that had a very active social life before having kids and moving to the suburbs would likely see a drop in that activity when suddenly having to take care of small kids in a suburban situation. However, for someone that before having kids they already don't have any friends/family close by (imagine a fresh middle-aged, childless, immigrant couple moving in an area where there are very few other people from their own country), having kids would force a lot more opportunities to interact with other people (doctors, caretakers, teachers, other parents, etc) and ultimately speed up integration. Sure, none of those relationships may become a deep friendship connection but it's a lot better than having no human interaction.
- LordFast 7y ago
  It's not a perfect life (there isn't one), and there's no argument from me about there being different strokes for different folks. At the end of the day, however, even Einstein had to poop out of his own butt. What I said should be taken with a grain of salt. I did what I did for more than a decade, savoring both the good and the bad.

zwkrt 7y ago

You have assumed the role of the loser, as per https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... It feels nice down here, join us!

LordFast 7y ago
Love it! https://206hwf3fj4w52u3br03fi242-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/compLifeCycle.JPG https://206hwf3fj4w52u3br03fi242-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...
dondawest 7y ago
No way man, I bet if we found out the specifics we’d both deem him “clueless” on the GP hierarchy. Unless he literally works in a warehouse or in a position that is pure “worker bee,” $100 says if we knew the actual job title this guy held we’d deem him “clueless.” (Not that he actually IS clueless, who knows, I’m just using that word in the gervais principle sense of it). “I made a similar choice a couple of years ago to downgrade my career into a slower-paced, less stressful scenario with less money” is quintessential “clueless” reasoning. Prioritizing things like a slow pace and a lack of stress is something that “clueless” people tend to do, not “losers.” Darryl (& co) in the warehouse are stressed, dude, and they don’t have the time or inclination to prioritize things like lowering stress. They’re too busy living paycheck-to-paycheck. Toby in the office is less stressed, and I bet if you talked to the character Toby he’d say almost exactly what the guy wrote above. I mean look what he’s doing here — sharing his emotional reasoning with the group. That’s something “clueless” people do, not “losers,” who tend to merely act on emotions rather than reflect on them and THEN act. If this guy ACTUALLY became a “loser” and started working in an Amazon warehouse and it wasn’t part of a larger “clueless” meta-scheme to get a tax break or something, I would be literally shocked.
- war1025 7y ago
  Your reading of that hierarchy is different from what I got out of it. Clueless are people buy into the "Arbeit makt frei" idea. In the linked article, the majority of people in the office (not even considering the warehouse) are losers. Stanley is the quintessential "loser", and he precisely optimizes for "slower-paced, less stressful". In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's the "worker bees" that are clueless. Dwight, for example, is as "worker bee" as they come. He jumps on command. From my reading, this hierarchy has nothing to do with social status outside of work. It is precisely how you behave on the job.
  - dondawest 7y ago
    I agree that many worker bees are “clueless” but that breaks the GP heuristics. My reading seems similar but different to yours. I agree that it has nothing to do with social status outside of work: to me it’s about emotional processing. I can’t recall the specific passage but I remember Venkat talking about how clueless people seek absolution in collective emotional processing. That’s what leads me to believe the dude you’re replying to is clueless. I completely disagree that Stanley is a loser, to me he is a quintessential clueless. He’s working in the office, not the warehouse: he’s in middle management, so IMO he’s clueless by definition because he is part of the padding between the masters/sociopaths/bosses and the slaves/worker bees/losers. I think your perspective is interesting but I feel like I am adhering slightly more strictly to the heuristics laid out in GP.
    - war1025 7y ago
      Directly from the article: """ The minimum-effort Loser Stanley tells him coldly, "this here is a run-out-the-clock situation." The line could apply to Stanley’s entire life. """ So either you are pulling your info from some more-original source than I am, or you're mis-remembering what the article says.
      - dondawest 7y ago
        Then venkat’s own model is self-contradictory. He states clearly that middle managers provide the buffer between the sociopaths and losers. Thus, Stanley is clueless. Venkat’s description of Stanley as a “loser” completely destroys his own heuristics that only clueless are in middle management. So congratulations, you’ve found a flaw in Venkat’s logic. He contradicts himself. However, I still think the general heuristics he lays out are valuable (as you seem to). Thanks for the quote man — you made me realize the issue isn’t quite as cut-and-dry as I thought it was. I see your point now. Thank you.
chongli 7y ago
The 3 layer hierarchy which seems to be a cornerstone for that piece's thesis is just a restatement of the structure of The Party from Orwell's 1984, applied to companies rather than all of society. It is an interesting way to look at organizations though.

oposa 7y ago

By definition you wouldn't know many lonely people. The chronically lonely ones are going to be the people who didn't end up getting married when they "should" have, couldn't make it into a proper career or fell out of one at some point. Most upper middle class people won't be lonely since if you can afford a career you can afford a social life or you might even be forced into one. But of course uncertainty and insecurity can make one feel lonely, so I guess that would count. Still that isn't going to be your epidemic. That is going to be those left behind.

j2bax 7y ago
This makes me think of a good friend from college that I lost touch with, who recently committed suicide. I felt a significant amount of guilt, thinking about the fact that I could have very easily stayed in touch with him, despite not living anywhere close. Really made me think about people that I've had friendships with in the past that I may be able to reach out to and make a difference in their lives just by being the one person (or one of a few) that they talk to on a semi-frequent basis.
watwut 7y ago
It just does not work like that. Many people with stable jobs are lonely. Long hours means that you don't have connection with family even if you have it. You live separate life from partner and your children are not close to you. One partner working long hours is enough for both partners to be lonely in marriage. Partner having time consuming hobby is enough for you to be lonely in marriage. People in work are not friends, they are competitors, allies, enemies, whatever. They are not people you can talk with openly. Moreover, there are plenty of jobs where you work mostly alone or have only temporary relationships. End result is loneliness.
LordFast 7y ago
No denial from me that there's a problem. I wanted to jump in, however, and share some personal journeys. Maybe it will help one person, or not.
badpun 7y ago
> Most upper middle class people won't be lonely since if you can afford a career you can afford a social life or you might even be forced into one. Social life is not about having money (well unless you're really poor) - it's about having time and people to spend it with. You can be in top 5-10% of income and a total loner - plenty such people in tech.

cosmodisk 7y ago

What you described here is essentially 'survivorship bias'. Also,just because someone married away into a cosy suburb with 2 kids and a nice hubby,it doesn't mean they aren't lonely. There are millions of people out there who would kill for a chance to have someone outside that "perfect" life just to talk openly with... All those "desperate housewives" don't get created without reason.

watwut 7y ago
Suburbs and 2 kids are both isolating. Especially when kids are small.
- war1025 7y ago
  Kids don't have to be isolating. You just have to adjust your life to do things that are if not kid-friendly, kid-accepting. Also have to get over the fear that people will judge you for taking your kids with you out into the world.
- d1zzy 7y ago
  It depends on where you coming from. I agree that for someone that had a very active social life before having kids and moving to the suburbs would likely see a drop in that activity when suddenly having to take care of small kids in a suburban situation. However, for someone that before having kids they already don't have any friends/family close by (imagine a fresh middle-aged, childless, immigrant couple moving in an area where there are very few other people from their own country), having kids would force a lot more opportunities to interact with other people (doctors, caretakers, teachers, other parents, etc) and ultimately speed up integration. Sure, none of those relationships may become a deep friendship connection but it's a lot better than having no human interaction.
LordFast 7y ago
It's not a perfect life (there isn't one), and there's no argument from me about there being different strokes for different folks. At the end of the day, however, even Einstein had to poop out of his own butt. What I said should be taken with a grain of salt. I did what I did for more than a decade, savoring both the good and the bad.