3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat's why it's bad to use intentionally misleading terms for concepts.
- j4yav 6y agoI actually agree with you if you redefine all the terms in this way, but then we are talking about something else.
- platz 6y agothat's exactly how the terms are defined in the article.
- j4yav 6y agoHe 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.