4 ms·

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 tha

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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- imbnwa 6y ago
  > It's possible, but better to just be the conscientious achiever for your own sake. I don't think that kind of committment is one concerned with the prospect of failure, and this may be the difference in subjectivity, which seems to be grandparent's point.
invalidOrTaken 6y ago
Yes! The trap people fall into is an is-ought fallacy, where because they consider corporate dynamics immoral, they conclude that they are false. One should work hard and be kind, but the determination to do so shouldn't cloud one's vision.

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.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
imbnwa 6y ago
> It's possible, but better to just be the conscientious achiever for your own sake. I don't think that kind of committment is one concerned with the prospect of failure, and this may be the difference in subjectivity, which seems to be grandparent's point.

invalidOrTaken 6y ago

Yes! The trap people fall into is an is-ought fallacy, where because they consider corporate dynamics immoral, they conclude that they are false. One should work hard and be kind, but the determination to do so shouldn't cloud one's vision.