5 ms·

I really enjoyed this when I was younger, around the time it came out. Over time though I came to realize it's way too cynical and reductive to really guide you

by j4yav 6y ago

I really enjoyed this when I was younger, around the time it came out. Over time though I came to realize it's way too cynical and reductive to really guide you to any sort of successful outcome. Do your best to be confident, kind, and engaged and you will run circles around the characters enumerated here, even the "winners".

powersnail 6y ago
> guide you to any sort of successful outcome I'd say, 99% of TV shows, cynical or otherwise, don't have that goal in mind, and is incapable of guiding you through life.
- skrebbel 6y ago
  Most Venkatesh Rao articles do have that goal in mind.
  - powersnail 6y ago
    And I do think that the article is reading too much into the show. While the show has a sense a realism (all shows do), it is a fiction, and many things happen for the sake of comedy or plot.
- j4yav 6y ago
  That's true, but I'm not referring to the show but the article/theory of work interactions.
skrebbel 6y ago
I fully agree. In fact I've never worked in an environment like described in this article. I'm not questioning their existence, I know plenty friends who work(ed) in toxic environments, and sure I've been a bit lucky. But the whole idea that unavoidably you're either a loser, clueless, or a sociopath just doesn't seem rooted in reality to me. Plenty companies are not set up as toxic exploitation machines.
- amscanne 6y ago
  I think both you and the parent have missed the point. The word “loser” is not the colloquial use of the term, and there is no “winner” (despite the confusing quotations above). Here it simply means loser in the economic sense — they produce an outsized amount of value for the company. They may be fully aware of this, and be happy and productive. They are simply unwilling or unable to do what’s necessary to climb the corporate ladder. If they have awareness of this dynamic, then they’re also unlikely to be promoted in middle management, since the sociopaths want people that will be loyal to them and support their agenda. Similarly “clueless” doesn’t mean they are idiots — simply that they don’t have what it takes to be a sociopath, and aren’t aware of how they are being used. In other words, they are thinking exactly like the parent post — that’s exactly the kind of person the sociopath wants to promote to middle management. Finally, “sociopath” is an exaggeration, and it doesn’t mean these people are terrible humans with no redeeming qualities. It just means that they are focused on their own outcomes above others, and internally may be lacking in the conscience department.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    That's why it's bad to use intentionally misleading terms for concepts.
  - j4yav 6y ago
    I actually agree with you if you redefine all the terms in this way, but then we are talking about something else.
    - platz 6y ago
      that's exactly how the terms are defined in the article.
      - j4yav 6y ago
        He goes quite deep over the full series and puts them into very rigidly defined boxes with whole sets of behaviors and even specific language and secret communication modes attributed to them. If you loosen it all back up it's vague enough to be generally applicable.
recursivedoubts 6y ago
Unfortunately that's exactly what a sociopath or clueless would say. I believe in "work hard & be nice to people", but for religious & stoic reasons rather than expectations that it will be a successful strategy in most corporate environments.
- j4yav 6y ago
  If I had to be bucketed into one of these categories it would be the sociopath one. But, I've done it without doing the things described by the author as necessary, and seeing those who have tries to work in that way eventually fail.
  - kmlevitt 6y ago
    How healthy/functional are the institutions you have worked in, though? I think healthy institutions find and reward the best people, and so this model fails in them. But the author’s assumption is (perhaps accurately) that most companies are in fact dysfunctional. Earlier in my work history I worked at some awful companies where this model rang an awful lot more true.
- jvanderbot 6y ago
  You want the _optics_ of working hard and being nice, without being a pushover, and with seeking opportunities to advance yourself. A sociopath is a master manipulator in this regard. The easiest way to obtain the optics of this, is to actually embody it. (much easier than cultivating sociopathic tendencies) The danger is that you over-nice, and end up a sucker. The sociopath works because he can appear to be the conscientious achiever without doing the hard part. It's possible, but better to just be the conscientious achiever for your own sake.
  - j4yav 6y ago
    Thanks, you put it much more clearly than I did. It's what I was getting at with the confidence part, that you need to know your boundaries and what your goals are, and not being afraid enforce them. You can do this while being kind and will achieve better results because you have friends and allies to work with.
cambalache 6y ago
> Do your best to be confident, kind, and engaged and you will run circles around the characters enumerated here, even the "winners". Yes! That's why we have great leaders like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Mark Zuckerberg,Elizabeth Holmes, Vladimir Putin. If anything the guide was not cynical enough. I saw stuff 10x worse in corporate environments.
- throwaway09223 6y ago
  I'm sure you've seen terrible behavior in corporate environments. I have too. But I've also seen wonderfully productive, supportive behavior. I've seen leaders who uplift and who succeed by helping those around them. I've learned to pay attention to who I work for, or with, and to support the kind of people who I want to see running things. It's a grave error to only consider the worst while ignoring the best.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    > But I've also seen wonderfully productive, supportive behavior. Me too, 99% coming from the rank and file, cleaning personnel, etc. A VP wont sacrifice his chances of promotion to help you, and if he has to fire you to get it,he will.
    - medium_burrito 6y ago
      I think I've seen one VP ever take the fall instead of firing an employee, and that was a principal engineer who was the VP's friend. Moral victory- but both the VP and the engineer were fired in the end. That said, I believe this is an isolated and extremely rare incident.
- lostcolony 6y ago
  I think it's clear even by your tone you recognize those aren't great leaders. Are you saying you feel they are -successful- leaders? More so than the kind ones? I think most would view Obama as a more successful leader than Trump; certainly, he won re-election easily.
bonaldi 6y ago
One of my problems with it is the horrible and overloaded terminology. "I'll call them losers, but I don't mean they're losers". Fine, find a better and less pejorative term, then. People deserve dignity, even if they are (sometimes forced into) making economic choices you think suboptimal.
- vp8989 6y ago
  That isn't an actual quote from the article. The article series quite clearly explains that these people are economic losers because they trade their time (just like the clueless and some sociopaths) for a paycheck but have neither the higher floor of the clueless or the higher ceiling of the sociopaths.
- nytgop77 6y ago
  I liked that language. It does help paint "organization's" picture - underline defining traits of each position in scope of said "organization".
- lomereiter 6y ago
  Indeed, I find the alternative naming proposed on the DaedTech blog a lot better: opportunists/idealists/pragmatists. Giving up on financial ambition and simply enjoying life is a pragmatic choice for many if not most people.
- gota 6y ago
  Agreed. In fact, the 'minimum-effort Losers' at certain booming industries (i.e. tech) are, in my view and arguably somewhat objectively, absolute 'Winners' of capitalism. Health-preserving work, at least a bit intellectually stimulating, paying so well that you can amass wealth and/or retire early + limited responsibility and no serious legal/economical fallout due to failure "Losers" in tech have got a great deal. Edit: to add - _job mobility_ to a level that even the 'Sociopaths' envy
nytgop77 6y ago
If you take article in the spirit of "All models are flawed, but some are useful" (some famous statistician named G.E.P.Box), then it is interesting perspective from which to look at organization.
bsder 6y ago
The primary flaw of the article is that it gives FAR too much agency to the "sociopaths". Most of the sociopaths are where they are because of randomness, too. The sociopaths often recognize that a situation could benefit them personally so they grab ahold--this is the point where they may stab somebody in the back. However, after they mount up for the ride, the tiger goes where it wants and they really don't have any control over it. If it goes well, congrats on your promotion. If it goes badly, even with a scapegoat your promotion path is done so start looking for a new job. So, the "sociopaths" are a product of 8 coin flips that all came up heads--unfortunately they all think they are geniuses.

by j4yav 6y ago

powersnail 6y ago

> guide you to any sort of successful outcome I'd say, 99% of TV shows, cynical or otherwise, don't have that goal in mind, and is incapable of guiding you through life.

skrebbel 6y ago
Most Venkatesh Rao articles do have that goal in mind.
- powersnail 6y ago
  And I do think that the article is reading too much into the show. While the show has a sense a realism (all shows do), it is a fiction, and many things happen for the sake of comedy or plot.
j4yav 6y ago
That's true, but I'm not referring to the show but the article/theory of work interactions.

skrebbel 6y ago

I fully agree. In fact I've never worked in an environment like described in this article. I'm not questioning their existence, I know plenty friends who work(ed) in toxic environments, and sure I've been a bit lucky. But the whole idea that unavoidably you're either a loser, clueless, or a sociopath just doesn't seem rooted in reality to me. Plenty companies are not set up as toxic exploitation machines.

amscanne 6y ago
I think both you and the parent have missed the point. The word “loser” is not the colloquial use of the term, and there is no “winner” (despite the confusing quotations above). Here it simply means loser in the economic sense — they produce an outsized amount of value for the company. They may be fully aware of this, and be happy and productive. They are simply unwilling or unable to do what’s necessary to climb the corporate ladder. If they have awareness of this dynamic, then they’re also unlikely to be promoted in middle management, since the sociopaths want people that will be loyal to them and support their agenda. Similarly “clueless” doesn’t mean they are idiots — simply that they don’t have what it takes to be a sociopath, and aren’t aware of how they are being used. In other words, they are thinking exactly like the parent post — that’s exactly the kind of person the sociopath wants to promote to middle management. Finally, “sociopath” is an exaggeration, and it doesn’t mean these people are terrible humans with no redeeming qualities. It just means that they are focused on their own outcomes above others, and internally may be lacking in the conscience department.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  That's why it's bad to use intentionally misleading terms for concepts.
- j4yav 6y ago
  I actually agree with you if you redefine all the terms in this way, but then we are talking about something else.
  - platz 6y ago
    that's exactly how the terms are defined in the article.
    - j4yav 6y ago
      He goes quite deep over the full series and puts them into very rigidly defined boxes with whole sets of behaviors and even specific language and secret communication modes attributed to them. If you loosen it all back up it's vague enough to be generally applicable.

recursivedoubts 6y ago

Unfortunately that's exactly what a sociopath or clueless would say. I believe in "work hard & be nice to people", but for religious & stoic reasons rather than expectations that it will be a successful strategy in most corporate environments.

j4yav 6y ago
If I had to be bucketed into one of these categories it would be the sociopath one. But, I've done it without doing the things described by the author as necessary, and seeing those who have tries to work in that way eventually fail.
- kmlevitt 6y ago
  How healthy/functional are the institutions you have worked in, though? I think healthy institutions find and reward the best people, and so this model fails in them. But the author’s assumption is (perhaps accurately) that most companies are in fact dysfunctional. Earlier in my work history I worked at some awful companies where this model rang an awful lot more true.
jvanderbot 6y ago
You want the _optics_ of working hard and being nice, without being a pushover, and with seeking opportunities to advance yourself. A sociopath is a master manipulator in this regard. The easiest way to obtain the optics of this, is to actually embody it. (much easier than cultivating sociopathic tendencies) The danger is that you over-nice, and end up a sucker. The sociopath works because he can appear to be the conscientious achiever without doing the hard part. It's possible, but better to just be the conscientious achiever for your own sake.
- j4yav 6y ago
  Thanks, you put it much more clearly than I did. It's what I was getting at with the confidence part, that you need to know your boundaries and what your goals are, and not being afraid enforce them. You can do this while being kind and will achieve better results because you have friends and allies to work with.

cambalache 6y ago

> Do your best to be confident, kind, and engaged and you will run circles around the characters enumerated here, even the "winners". Yes! That's why we have great leaders like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Mark Zuckerberg,Elizabeth Holmes, Vladimir Putin. If anything the guide was not cynical enough. I saw stuff 10x worse in corporate environments.

throwaway09223 6y ago
I'm sure you've seen terrible behavior in corporate environments. I have too. But I've also seen wonderfully productive, supportive behavior. I've seen leaders who uplift and who succeed by helping those around them. I've learned to pay attention to who I work for, or with, and to support the kind of people who I want to see running things. It's a grave error to only consider the worst while ignoring the best.
- cambalache 6y ago
  > But I've also seen wonderfully productive, supportive behavior. Me too, 99% coming from the rank and file, cleaning personnel, etc. A VP wont sacrifice his chances of promotion to help you, and if he has to fire you to get it,he will.
  - medium_burrito 6y ago
    I think I've seen one VP ever take the fall instead of firing an employee, and that was a principal engineer who was the VP's friend. Moral victory- but both the VP and the engineer were fired in the end. That said, I believe this is an isolated and extremely rare incident.
lostcolony 6y ago
I think it's clear even by your tone you recognize those aren't great leaders. Are you saying you feel they are -successful- leaders? More so than the kind ones? I think most would view Obama as a more successful leader than Trump; certainly, he won re-election easily.

bonaldi 6y ago

One of my problems with it is the horrible and overloaded terminology. "I'll call them losers, but I don't mean they're losers". Fine, find a better and less pejorative term, then. People deserve dignity, even if they are (sometimes forced into) making economic choices you think suboptimal.

vp8989 6y ago
That isn't an actual quote from the article. The article series quite clearly explains that these people are economic losers because they trade their time (just like the clueless and some sociopaths) for a paycheck but have neither the higher floor of the clueless or the higher ceiling of the sociopaths.
nytgop77 6y ago
I liked that language. It does help paint "organization's" picture - underline defining traits of each position in scope of said "organization".
lomereiter 6y ago
Indeed, I find the alternative naming proposed on the DaedTech blog a lot better: opportunists/idealists/pragmatists. Giving up on financial ambition and simply enjoying life is a pragmatic choice for many if not most people.
gota 6y ago
Agreed. In fact, the 'minimum-effort Losers' at certain booming industries (i.e. tech) are, in my view and arguably somewhat objectively, absolute 'Winners' of capitalism. Health-preserving work, at least a bit intellectually stimulating, paying so well that you can amass wealth and/or retire early + limited responsibility and no serious legal/economical fallout due to failure "Losers" in tech have got a great deal. Edit: to add - _job mobility_ to a level that even the 'Sociopaths' envy

nytgop77 6y ago

If you take article in the spirit of "All models are flawed, but some are useful" (some famous statistician named G.E.P.Box), then it is interesting perspective from which to look at organization.

bsder 6y ago

The primary flaw of the article is that it gives FAR too much agency to the "sociopaths". Most of the sociopaths are where they are because of randomness, too. The sociopaths often recognize that a situation could benefit them personally so they grab ahold--this is the point where they may stab somebody in the back. However, after they mount up for the ride, the tiger goes where it wants and they really don't have any control over it. If it goes well, congrats on your promotion. If it goes badly, even with a scapegoat your promotion path is done so start looking for a new job. So, the "sociopaths" are a product of 8 coin flips that all came up heads--unfortunately they all think they are geniuses.