12 ms·

The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class

231 points by jger15 6y ago

fitzroy 6y ago
If you’re interested in this stuff, the book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System by Paul Fussell is an entertaining and insightful book (from 1983, so a bit dated in parts but well worth it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class:_A_Guide_Through_the_American_Status_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class:_A_Guide_Through_the_Ame...
- sk5t 6y ago
  Good quick read; I think most of it does hold up. Art depicting clowns or cowboys, probably lower class; threadbare but once-good Persian carpets and shelves of books, probably higher class. The "top out of sight" class is an element most people probably don't think of.
ryan-duve 6y ago
This is a really well-written article. I am not sure if this spin on the cited references is novel but it is the first I am seeing any of it. I am jarred how well it describes the "middle" of society, including how many of my own behaviors/beliefs are captured. One thing I am having trouble with is the connection between Michael and the "educated" ladder, even though a big portion of the article is dedicated to that. I will have to mull on it more before I can convincingly respond to "So you think Michael Scott represents the PhDs of the world?" If you are the author, kudos to you.
- walshemj 6y ago
  Its interesting seeing this formal non American pov and how the American Office is very denatured compared to the UK one. So "the good place" is prestige TV! would not that be more like discussing the latest "in our time" about the plague of Justinian over the water cooler ?
- redisman 6y ago
  The metaphor definitely breaks in the middle ladder. Why not just do labor, middle management, owners like in the first part of the piece? I get that everyone hates NYT opinion writers but that’s like 20 people - not a social class. Also do software engineers fall into upper middle class or high skilled labor? I think they’re in both. Or maybe I just don’t have any interactions with the middle ladder in real life and I’m clueless
  - akhilcacharya 6y ago
    I'm convinced software engineers can be part of either of the 3 ladders, but most are in the upper middle class set.
    - niyikiza 6y ago
      Is it really the same person? - Coder/programmer (L1) - Software Engineer (L2) - Entrepreneur [in the software industry] (L3)
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    The tops of the ladder are there to show what people further down aspire to be. The idea is that if you are a building super you daydream about owning a general contractor business. If you’re a VP at an investment bank you dream of being a billionaire hedge fund manager. The conceit is that random lawyers and doctors wish they could be the kinds of lawyers and doctors that could get an Op-Ed published, but I don’t think it works. Maybe most Econ PhDs secretly want to be Paul Krugman. I doubt it, but maybe. But no way I buy most doctors secretly want to be Anthony Fauci.
  - superbcarrot 6y ago
    > Why not just do labor, middle management, owners like in the first part of the piece? I think the idea is that the communication styles from the first part carry over to the second. Which means that if you're an university-educated professional or a cultural leader, you mostly communicate through baby-talk and posture-talk. At least that seems to be the author's point, I'm not sure to what extent I agree.
  - 6y ago
- paultopia 6y ago
  Yeah, I really want to know where the author is getting their model of PhDs. Are we talking about literature departments or chemistry labs?
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Yeah, I was picturing my math education. He could probably get through calculus with cheating, tutoring, and begging. But I can't see him actually putting in the work to get through 200 level courses, much less grad courses. But, omg, I can't imagine him surviving a chem lab. The whole place would be on fire within a few minutes.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
leephillips 6y ago
This made me uncomfortable. So it’s probably accurate.
MilnerRoute 6y ago
See also "The Peter Principle," which famously argued that everyone eventually rises to their level of incompetence. The more interesting question is what do you do in response to that? The Peter Principle books actually argued you should turn down that last promotion. But how do we avoid becoming Michael Scott?
- neom 6y ago
  Can you recommend some good "The Peter Principle" books? I'm unfamiliar, would love to learn.
  - mathgeek 6y ago
    “The Peter Principle” by Laurence J. Peter
    - croissants 6y ago
      Oh geez. Until now, I thought the "Peter" in the Peter Principle was the biblical Peter, and I interpreted it as an indictment of Peter eventually getting promoted to a quasi-Jesus role as leader after Jesus...left the scene.
- greesil 6y ago
  Keep doing actual coding at least some of the time. Unless you care about income, in which case try to ascend the ziggurat.
- the-dude 6y ago
  How do you know it is your last promotion?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  The thing about the Peter Principle is how do you know which is the "last promotion" that you should turn down? No one should turn down the first promotion (from "fresh into the workforce" to "basically competent developer" [or journeyman welder/electrician/plumber or whatever the equivalent is for your field]). After that it gets murky because everyone has their own abilities and willingness to do what it takes to compensate for their own flaws and take advantage of their strengths.
djohnston 6y ago
I see myself in here, particularly w.r.t. learning about other cultures and histories and using that knowledge as talking points. I guess the only thing to do is break out of 3 tiers entirely, like Creed Bratton.
l3st2o 6y ago
This article itself is Michael Scott.
- the_local_host 6y ago
  The author missed a genuine opportunity to wrap it up with "Wrote The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class? Definitely, definitely Michael Scott."
  - croissants 6y ago
    This would kind of weaken the argument, because there's no way that Michael Scott would ever come up with a codified analysis of human class and interaction and put it on the internet. (It seems like a thoroughly Dwight move, though?)
    - thatguy0900 6y ago
      Funnily enough, Dwight did have an in character blog during the running of the show, and something like this actually would fit pretty well onto it https://web.archive.org/web/20090225001105/http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/dwights-blog/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090225001105/http://www.nbc.co...
dash2 6y ago
Meh.... This has a real "I'm 14 and this is deep" vibe. Like a teenager who thinks their dad is a loser, and that the real men are the guys at the bottom in tough blue collar jobs, or at the top in power suits being Wolves of Wall Street. Insights like this can be fun, but they're for the third beer with your buddies, not for writing down.
- s5300 6y ago
  Very correct Michael Scott.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- brighton36 6y ago
  It's very odd that 'baby talk' is professional. I don't think society was always this way. I also respect anyone who questions why this is the case. Assuming it's an efficiency, we should be able to justify this behavior.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I'd be surprised if there was any place or time where people didn't placate and humor those with power over them. The article's label of "babytalk" for this behavior just obscures the observation; it would be like calling typical code review language "fussytalk" and then expounding on how fussy programmers are.
  - monkeycantype 6y ago
    I worked as a software developer, in a non software company, I sat in an odd spot off to the side half way up the org chart. The non software people climbed the hierarchy not because they are competent at their jobs, in fact a highly competent person will often be passed over for promotion because they are useful where they are - but because of how they negotiated very complex social networks. A senior manager, my manager at the time felt that with very little skill to separate the people working at the company, ascendancy was about positioning yourself in bullying networks, and he described this this kind of 'baby talk' as a subservience signal in which you were surrendering to and accepting a manager as your patron and any further advancement you made was by their grace. If you chose to do the 'honest talk' with someone senior to you, it came with a risk and a potential reward, you had to do it well enough to convince them you were a worthy formidable peer and an ally. If you did it unconvincingly you would be struck down. This seemed to be a widely held worldview and therefore more or less the social reality in the non software parts of the business. I was free to do 'honest talk' because as a software person, I was clearly to the side of the game, it wasn't really possible for me to fall or climb too far.
f430 6y ago
Oh good god, I hope nobody on HN takes this seriously and that they can read between the lines that this a joke.
- porb121 6y ago
  if it is a joke, it pretty soundly failed to be funny.
  - f430 6y ago
    thanks for proving my point.
PartiallyTyped 6y ago
While climbing the middle ladder, something snapped in me, or perhaps covid accelerated the process. A year or so ago, I was working on my undergraduate thesis project in deep RL, I had been working on the project for 8-9 months at the time. Due to covid, lack of support and computational resources from the university, I was behind, and making progress was difficult. Shortly after I submitted the thesis, I felt an eerie disillusionment with the absurdity of the middle class, and whatever we are all doing, the pretentiousness, how we are all stuck in our own little bubbles where we find ways to feel special and 'serious' about things, how we focus and advertise the niche-ness of our field, and how we all advertise our lives in social media and so on. Sam Esmail put it greatly in the first episode of Mr. Robot in Elliot's monologue on what in society disappoints him so much [1] and concludes that the reason is that we are all cowards, we are looking to be sedated. Which is absolutely true, capitalism feeds on that, bought something?, bam dopamine rush, got a promotion to the same shitty position but with more responsibilities ? congratulations, another dopamine rush. Buying overpriced sushi and eating it with that chopstick skill you have mastered, another rush. Sharing our lives on the internet bam rush, and you know what, of course we need to share pictures with our friends, it's the contract, we scratch each other's back here, and the funny thing is, it is never enough, and it will never be enough [2]. Deep down, we all know that the world is utter shit, but living in these bubbles allows us to pretend that it is not so bad, because that is easier, it allows us to live with the situation instead of taking the roads and demanding that things change, if anything, why should we demand a change if "it's working for us", if whatever we have gives us a dose big enough to forget but small enough to function? Heck, even if we start fixing the world, Machiavelli argues that given the opportunity, the middle class will bring it back [3], because the new state of affairs will not enable that kind of detachment. The problem with this disillusionment is that you aren't willing to be sedated, not anymore, you realize how shit the world is, how everyone is pretending and is unwilling to accept it that we are not in control of anything. But what the f do I know. All I can say is that I have seen and experienced the 'Michael Scott' behaviour from the people the author mentions, but again, I live in my own little bubble. [1] https://soundcloud.com/flibber/mr-robot-101-elliots-monologue-about-society https://soundcloud.com/flibber/mr-robot-101-elliots-monologu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_adaptation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_adaptation [3] In "il prince", when a new prince conquers a region with the help of aristocrats, if he changes the norm, he needs to squash any chance of future opposition as the previous norm worked for the aristocrats and they will try to revert back. Edit: I must have hit some nerves. Sorry for telling the silent part out loud, Michael.
jariel 6y ago
It's neat although I'm not sure how 'right' it is. This is also possibly just a re-articulation of age-old delineations between working/middle and upper class sentiments. I think the working/middle class are the same ladder though and most of them share the same values in that they are no psychopath barbarians. The right-hand ladder is actually 2 parts: The ibankers belong squarely in the middle class rung. They are just workers like everyone else, and frankly, as preformative. Most of them are regular people and not sociopaths. The difference with some 'banking' roles - is that they are playing in games of 'dealing and leverage' - not so much value creation. So they're naturally going to acclimate to a different way of viewing thew world. They play zero-sum games whereas everyone else is doing work, or trying/pretending to. They have access to the 'old money' class and they see the potentiality. But really - the lower rungs of banking are just upper-class elite. The 'old money' are not necessarily sociopaths - they are often quite nice people, they vary from down-to-earth to detached to egoist. Maybe not nice enough to give up their money but not necessarily bad people. And living off of a stipend of limited wealth can give a sense of the limitations of money and these people are not wagging their money in your face. There is a hugely fundamental difference between 'barbarian' like Donald Trump, or Putin, and kids from the Bertelsmann family because those who are 'out of the game' and living off old money are super effete, it's not like they are going to be that important or influential. They are useless and they know it. I also dispute the morale differentials etc. I think there's some truthiness there, but it's a function of aspiration: the 'working class' have more likely than not accepted their lot while the 'middle class' are competing for surpluses. Finally, I'm not so cynical. Those 'middle class' people do important things. It's not easy to be a dentist, doctor, write software, manage people etc..
nicbou 6y ago
I think it boils down to having enough free time and money to care about dumb things. Your basic needs are covered, so you have spare energy for various causes and weird hobbies. I suspect that baby talk is just how you answer to someone you can't relate to. I answer just the same when someone tells me about sports, or their racing horses. It's just what you default to when there's a cultural disconnect, but the desire to show respect.
anm89 6y ago
Every person not in the bottom rung is a "sociopath"? Honestly I get a little tinge of joy out of the bitterness of these whiners sometimes. If you think every person in life that has gotten a different outcome than you is a "sociopath" your are probably something a lot closer to a sociopath than average (ie a seeming total lack of ability to empathize with a vast swath of people based on superficial differences)
- ludston 6y ago
  I really enjoyed this comment, because it managed to say both, "I take joy from other peoples suffering", and "I'm not a sociopath, you are."
greesil 6y ago
If you stare at clouds, you might see patterns in them. That doesn't mean that's the governing principle behind their formation.
- JimTheMan 6y ago
  That's a beautiful phrase. This article reminds me of a Karate School that doesn't spar. It looks impressive, but put it in an mma cage and it quickly falls apart.
- girvo 6y ago
  The human capability for pattern recognition is still beautiful and amazing to me — and hey, you can still find interesting models that have some value from them, even if you won’t elucidate the root cause.
  - greesil 6y ago
    I disagree completely, at least in this context. If the model doesn't explain the variance, maybe it isn't a good model to use. If you're making art or some other creative endeavor, then yeah, fantastic. If you're trying to show us how the world works, nope.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
moralestapia 6y ago
Michael O' Church has written some amazing blog posts. If you tolerate his style, I highly recommend reading him. Too bad he fell out of grace from the SV elite (and I can totally see why). I wish he continued writing as much as he was back in the time.
6chars 6y ago
I don't think the author really understands the characterization of Michael Scott. I can't imagine the hypothetical scene of Michael Scott taking pride in knowing how to use chopsticks. That sounds way more out of character to me than having him not know how to use them. Hard for me to take the article seriously when it has to make up character traits for Michael Scott to make its point. I believe that the type of person the author thinks Michael Scott is exists and sucks (and I'm probably one of them), but I don't think Michael Scott is one of them.
- vlunkr 6y ago
  The other part is that Micheal doesn't posturetalk to his employees. He desperately wants them to be his friends, because he has none. It's one of his defining characteristics.
- redisman 6y ago
  Right, Michael Scott would tell someone he of course knows how to use them and then end up in a Japanese restaurant with that person and be found out to be the fool once again.
  - 6chars 6y ago
    That I can see. Or he would fixate on the fact that someone else does know how to use them and get competitive about it, trying and failing hard to show that he's also worldly.
  - gibb0n 6y ago
    Michael Scott would make fun of the chopsticks, use them to play drums etc. say something racist, and then search for a fork or spoon.
- croissants 6y ago
  I agree, this bit in particular seems wrong to me: > Posturetalk is everything said by Michael, Dwight and Andy, to anyone: the staff, the execs, or each other. Everything they say is some form or another of meaningless, performative babbling. I only really remember the first four seasons of The Office, but I remember Michael as being a very skilled salesman and a very unskilled manager. But Michael's skill as a salesman comes from a genuine desire to connect with people and form relationships --- recall the episode where he takes a second job as a telemarketer and keeps deviating from the call scripts to ask people about their lives. In that sense, a big chunk of what Michael says is pretty close to the opposite of performative?
creddit 6y ago
I found myself mildly nodding along to this waiting for the moment of clarity where he describes more fully the elite ladder but he doesn't and so I have no idea how to contrast this middle tier with the upper tier to see distinctions. What's an example of the Elite behaviors/language? How would I know Powertalk when I see it? What would an Elite do/have to show their true status? I definitely accept that I'm not an elite. I am "wealthy" in a strictly relative financial sense but I have no political power/connections derived from it and have never tried to gain any. This has always been my personal distinction between say myself and the true elites. Wealth doesn't inherently get you power and I don't really even know how I would leverage what wealth I have to gain power despite this being a potentially viable avenue. Is this not a much better distinction?
- krrishd 6y ago
  The Gervais Principle (which this article is a riff off of) covers what you’re looking for (and what the author here left implicit): 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-... specifically the “Sociopath” as described in the Gervais Principle == the elite
  - creddit 6y ago
    But they're so different to make the comparison moot, no? Class and the power structure of organizations are dramatically different.
- jariel 6y ago
  The middle class are just workers, who are paid more. The preformative aspects come from competition with their peers. It's why white collar workers are so bent on doing public speaking things, TED Talks etc.. It's hard to be a VP you have to somehow get everyone else to think you're 'that much better' than the workers. Watch the news: almost every contributor is making a performance. Trump's the 'Apprentice' is a giant bit of performance, nothing to do with reality. The elite use leverage. Think of them as VCs. They don't 'work' like we do, they negotiate hard deals with workers and try to grab all the surpluses. It's really just a basic take on working/middle class + capital class.
nexthash 6y ago
This article and the theory it presents has some interesting intersections with how society actually works (i.e. the elite being anyone who has real leverage). I liked the depiction of the intellectual classes, but I believe that rather than hiding from reality they are commenting on it and influencing society's culture, not having to worry about material security. Also, the categories/ladders are looser than one would assume. Cultural and labor leaders, if determined, can seize power for themselves, as seen with the rise of the Soviet Union and Islamic Republic of Iran. I personally don't believe in the "babytalk" notion: this depends on individual character, and any common lingo would be based solely on the pressures of position the individual is in.
mr_cyborg 6y ago
The Gervais Principle is a great read for fans of The Office and/or people who work at large companies. Nice to see it get a shout out. 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-...
- perrygeo 6y ago
  This. The OP is effectively a re-wording of the Gervais principal - same idea with slightly less words in blog form. It's a bit ingenious to claim a whole new theory.
  - midasuni 6y ago
    Did you mean ingenious or ingenuous?
    - whoisburbansky 6y ago
      Disingenuous would make more sense in the context of GP’s comment, but I too have a hard time seeing how ingenious works here.
  - the_gipsy 6y ago
    I had the same impression, but I _did_ find the translation to these three "social ladders" worthwhile.
  - creddit 6y ago
    His theory is new because it's applied to Class. It's far worse because it is poorly fleshed out.
- tlarkworthy 6y ago
  Beware, it makes you aware. I can't take a power structure seriously anymore, which, weirdly, made me very promotable as the principle foretold.
  - 6y ago
oxfeed65261 6y ago
The essay itself is of course an example of posturetalk.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  I see it as an attempt at self reflection...
z5h 6y ago
Interesting perspective. Without agreeing or disagreeing, I wonder where, on which ladder I’d want to be. Old Money is probably best, but, I don’t really have a choice. Seems Michael Scott is the next best option.
- mdocherty 6y ago
  Marry rich!
vlunkr 6y ago
Perhaps the most annoying thing about this article is the built-in defense that "if you don't get it, you're a Micheal." I see many people in the comments making comments like this.
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  Intriguing point. I'd add that the "if you don't get it" phrase seems a lot more like a Michael Scott character's take on things (meanwhile--do they really get it? Or is there more than one perspective to get?). :-)
pk_kinetic 6y ago
I was hoping for some payoff, like if it was possible for me to somehow hop over to the elite ladder and ascend to the level of barbarian.
- superbcarrot 6y ago
  According to the article you can be a loser, a sociopath or Michael Scott. And the harder you're trying, the more likely it is that you're Michael Scott.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
javajosh 6y ago
I believe America has 4 Great Games, with 4 traditional city centers: Knowledge (Boston), Money (New York), Fame (Hollywood), Power (DC). (Arguably there is a fifth, Tech (Silicon Valley), which is Knowledge, Money & Power, all rolled together, and in that order). The Office only takes place inside a small, mundane part of the Money game, and I think the middle ladder in the OP's post muddles Money and Knowledge. Note that all the games are used as backdrops, Power being the more usual pick: all legal/police/crime content inhabits that space. Its also important to note that the Office takes place in the UK and America, winners of the second world war, and so the ones where the Games have grown in size and complexity monotonically for over 100 years, and the players are fat, rich, and lazy (characteristic of late stage capitalism). The lack of external stressor (e.g. competition, frugal clients, and so on) is what enables the company, and its employees, to be detached from reality and still survive despite these costly distractions. This detachment is the inevitable cost of great wealth and long periods of uninterrupted success, and is the mechanism by which large scale structures, like civilizations, regress to the mean.
ErikAugust 6y ago
Who is an example of a barbarian?
monkeycantype 6y ago
There are disagreements here about whether the details are correct, but if you stick to the concept of languages, I think this is brilliant. I work in an environment with extreme wage disparity between the stratified layers described here, with me in the clueless zone, and the languages described here are mandatory in order to deflect analysis and discussion of the power structures and the trivial and grotesque ways they are routinely abused.
themodelplumber 6y ago
This kind of social class theory is unfortunately not one that yields a lot of leverage, while simultaneously promising to cause a lot of hurt. (It also reads as if it betrays some hurt feelings on the part of its creator, IMO). I think this is why it's traditionally, historically, so incendiary to talk about class theory. Also, here we are at the point in history when even reclusive billionaires are starting to change and improve the way they contribute to the world. Some are even giving away all their money before they die, which was once seen as a feat the bible itself couldn't envision. Michael Scott is also given occasional but shy credit on the show for being someone whose values freely interconnect with those of his workers, which to me was an understated win of the series. The fact is, Michael can't be the best of everybody, even though he tries. But he can sure reflect their good back onto them, even when he's completely exploding an otherwise harmless situation! It's an underrated gift. We need more of that good-reflecting in the world, and less criticism of the kind that reflects a hopeless situation.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Discussing social class is so incendiary in America specifically because Americans have convinced themselves for a long time that they only have economic classes and no social classes. Discussing social class therefore became a taboo, as it breaches the polite fiction that America is a classless society. I call it a polite fiction because if you pay attention there are tons of ways that Americans find a way to separate social class from economic class (e.g. “money can’t buy taste” as a way to dismiss someone as being low class and rich). Of course, like any way to divide up people there is ample opportunity for harmful and mean stereotypes. But I don’t think that alone is why discussing class is so explosive in America.
totemandtoken 6y ago
This was an interesting take but I'm a little disappointed that the author didn't take the language idea further. As in, in this author's conception of class based language, what's an example of "straight talk"? How do the elites "babytalk" to the Michael Scott-gentry middle class? Most interestingly, what would "powertalk" be in this conception of class? Would it be raw datasets and financial spreadsheets? Because that seems at odds with the "barbarians" he posits via Church are at the top of the elite ladder. Or are the "barbarians" ruthless state-leaders who only speak in intelligence reports and legal/military briefs and those types of documents are "powertalk"? Interesting classifications nonetheless...
- wcunning 6y ago
  Babytalk from the Elites to the Middle Class would be something like the all staff meetings for Penguin staff complaining that Penguin Canada is publishing another Jordan Peterson book or Politico staff complaining that Ben Shapiro was invited to write an entry in their outside opinion section. Or potentially some of the corporate higher up talking up social responsibility actions that are at best token. I'm more interested in the "real talk" between Elites and Losers -- what's that look like?
  - twirlip 6y ago
    In Brent Staples's Parallel Time, the author documents Rupert Murdoch after he bought the Chicago Sun-Times. Murdoch points at people and tells them, "I own you and you and you." Conversely, there's the Alex Baldwin monologue at the beginning of Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - totemandtoken 6y ago
    Good point about corporate-speak as elite-to-middle babytalk. I would hazard a guess that the closest thing to straight talk is at the possible inception of a union. Not after the union is formed and established - I don't think there's a lot of straight talk between UAW and GM nowadays - but if someone like Musk is afraid the gigafactory workers are banding together, he might be forced to talk to them directly. Unfortunately, I don't think this "real talk" is ever recorded or broadcast. The most stark example I can think of is when Emperor Hirohito informed the Japanese citizens of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki[1], but funny enough that is mostly known for how confusing it was for the average Japanses citizen to understand what was going on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Voice_Broadcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Voice_Broadcast
stephc_int13 6y ago
There are at least two very different things mixed in this text and no logic reasoning. Paraphrasing an idea a few times is a very weak proof, to say the least. And mixing a few random opinions on top is not improving the whole... Pretty poor article.
giantg2 6y ago
My theory is that social structures only fuck me over.
Gollapalli 6y ago
In reading this I have but a single question: How does one become a barbarian?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mistersquid 6y ago
I partly disagree with those who assert Michael Scott does not know how to use chopsticks. Scott does know how to use chopsticks and is so proud of his “skill” he insufferably tutors chopstick maladroits regarding technique. However, Scott’s technique is both suboptimal and childish, his grasp of the sticks conforming to how children are taught to use chopsticks and offering less precision than techniques which adults use. [0] Furthermore, Scott’s not actually very skilled at using chopsticks. He’s a step above stabbing food with them or using them with one in each hand, but his mastery of the kids’ way of using chopsticks is barely better than rudimentary. Often while lifting food from his from his plate and into his mouth, Scott will clumsily drop the morsel back onto the plate and chomp at empty air. Watching Michael Scott eat with chopsticks is to be embarrassed for him, while he himself remains oblivious and proud. Michael Scott will replace his chopsticks with a spoon for the last 25% of his meal. Lastly, the linked article is a marvelous troll guaranteed to rile even the most self-assured (and they are nothing if not self-assured) member of the Whytian Clueless. [0] In my corner of South Korean culture, the kids’ way of holding chopsticks involves the thumb, index, middle, and ring fingers. The adult way omits the ring finger.
underwater 6y ago
I can get on board with the idea that to other people and other classes the things you aspire to achieve are silly, and the way you act to get those things is ridiculous. But the idea that the blue collar workers and elites "get it" while the bourgeoisie are fooling themselves comes across as ... self loathing, perhaps? You could just as easily make the argument that the aspirations of the blue collar are shallow and meaningless. And or the elites are sociopathic because, hey, we all turn to dust in the end.
okareaman 6y ago
For me the takeaway is that the labor class and the owner class have clarity about the station and purpose in life while the managerial class doesn't because they don't know which end of the scale they fall on. Are they glorified labor or almost ruling class?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
danbruder 6y ago
Oh crap. I’m Michael Scott.
motohagiography 6y ago
I get these on Dancos mailing list and haven't finished article yet but reading the comment thread I'm super interested in how provocative it was to HN. The Gervais Principle was a great/cynical popular summary of some more refined ideas in management theory. Generalizing it to a theory of post-internet globalized class seems straight forward, with the caveat that it can only be as useful as any theory of class. It's the Marxist ceiling, like how classical Newtonian physics is fantastic for modelling coarse engineering problems, and loses coherence when applied to the nature of reality, and doesnt provide much more than some metaphors for things as normal as economics. Reading through it, I don't think this was written so much as an explanatory piece for an HN audience as it was to find others thinking about these problems.
rootsudo 6y ago
So much writing for just stating the "Peter Principal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle And not one mention of it in that entire substack either, though few others mentioned it on here before me. :) That's good. I always enjoy discovering something backwards, e.g. through experience and then learn it's already documented.
jjj123 6y ago
The part about the upper middle class (myself included) being detached from reality is spot on. You have no need to worry about money other than the desire to upgrade status symbols. You have no real power or path to power, so you don’t understand that either. You’re floating blissfully in the middle reading about mushroom foraging while the poor get poorer and the elite siphon even more wealth and power.
torginus 6y ago
I kind of disagree with the whole model, or at least as it pertains to large organizations. I have spent too many unfortunate years at a big Enterprisey software development organization, and have concluded that the real sociopaths/incompetents/climbers lie in middle management. I would even go as far to say that if the middle management has no technical responsibilities, and as such entirely is detached from the work of engineers, nearly 100% of them come from the aforementioned categories. Let me try to elaborate: Upper management is generally characterised by a good awareness of market needs/conditions, what needs/can be delivered by the next release, and the available and required resources needed to deliver features on time. They have both the power to make significant decisions, and are usually held accountable for delivering features. Non-technical management usually draws its ranks from MBAs who think of engineers as pathetic nerds, engineering people who either don't want to code or suck at it, and culty types who try to apply every hip development methodology/pop psychology hack to hopefully improve the performance of engineers (which is usually accompanied by universal resentment). They usually have the luxury of playing head games with the people under them (I'm fairly convinced most pop management MBA bullshit exists to make their work and decision processes totally opaque/give them control to do whatever they want as well as to gaslight their 'subjects' about their perceived performance). Since this is getting long I'll cherry pick 2 examples: I spent 3 days (+overtime) debugging an issue that involved a bug in native code that created memory corruption in the Java side of the app, which naturally produced weird behaviour - I got berated for taking too long, as well as not writing a detailed enough post-bug report of the root cause of the issue (why was this even a thing). Another time, some MM came up a great idea of improving software quality (which was shit due to the huge amounts of legacy code we weren't allowed to touch) - which essentially boiled down to filling out an extra field in Jira, making a compilation of said fields in a PowerPoint presentation, and having a 3 hour meeting about said fields, and based on the results, probably defining some extra wishy-washy action items to follow in the future. Naturally, this added an extra responsibility to our understaffed, overworked team, which was created a naturally hostile vibe in us. However one of the least competent, and morally flexible guys (the guy who literally couldn't solve a single problem on his own, but had a talent for making his problems somebody elses too - and advertise the result as 'teamwork') naturally stepped up to drive the idea - and was promoted to some management position a few months later, partially due to these efforts. In summary, I feel like unlike upper management, and engineers, middle management serves no purpose in most organizations, and they know that, so they create their niche by mostly less then ethical purposes, so they get to play petty despots with some, but not much tangible power, and little to no responsibility/accountability.
philosopher1234 6y ago
I believe the function of this article, as evidenced by some comments in this thread, is to believably criticize media like the NYT or Twitter. If you take the authors world view as true, and you identify yourself as a laborer in the conservative notion, for instance maybe you like Donald trump or Jordan Peterson and hate critical theory, then you see the world clearly and you have friends in high places, unlike the clueless left academics and media who opposes you. The left, simply because they are in the middle, are universally wrong and mocked by everyone who isn’t as delusional as they are. I suspect this article and it’s author of having underlying (and deniable) partisan motivations.
- pavlov 6y ago
  The examples picked by the author are evidence of this bias. Triathlon hobby, “right amount of hops”, and PhD are the author’s examples of supposed middle-grade cluelessness. Are those any different from a hunting hobby, “right caliber of gun”, and being a country club member? Presumably the latter would fall on the author’s sanctified leftmost ladder of Labor where people only talk straight and aspire for reasonable things. Yet the article makes no effort to justify why certain hobbies and pursuits are “loser real” and others are “clueless fake.”
mobb_solo 6y ago
"Like" and subscribe to this Content? Michael Scott.
rexreed 6y ago
I find it ironic that this piece is written from the perspective of the so-called "Educated Gentry", basically the same kind of performative babble of mid-tier cluelessness.
- caf 6y ago
  Yes - I wonder exactly where on those three ladders the author places themself?
ghiculescu 6y ago
I just read both this and the Michael Church article it links to. I think they are arguing the opposite in many ways. Eg Alex Danck calls the gentry ladder clueless, while Michael Church says they will lead us to the future. It’s hard to see how they are both right.
hyperpallium2 6y ago
Interesting.
pablosanta 6y ago
OP could have added Andy’s need to remind everybody he attended Cornell as another proof of his point.
ls_waiting 6y ago
"Oftentimes. when people are miserable, they will want to make other people miserable, too. But it never helps."
caf 6y ago
I think the author has met very few PhDs - in my experience, as a group they're very aware that if they continue to work in research, their work will neither be important to most people outside of their field, nor reap great economic rewards. In fact the more I think about it, the more this reads as an anti-academic screed - basically dunking on those with high educational attainments or artistic abilities, but only a middle-of-the-road income to show for it. And also triathletes.
pickledish 6y ago
For an article that takes a more serious look at a very similar (analogous, IMO) three-slice breakdown of socioeconomic class in America, I’d recommend this article “the birth of a new American aristocracy”, as the tiers of the pyramid in this article seem to map one to one onto the three slices in the Atlantic article, and even though I read it years ago it’s still one of my favorites. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-bir...
subjectsigma 6y ago
One time somebody posted an article (whose name escapes me now that) which asserted that "Endurance sports are the domain of white people because they need artificial pain and struggle to make their otherwise meaningless lives meaningful." It was such a lazy and pompous ideological hit-and-run. I'm getting a lot of the same vibes from this piece. If you have disposable income and want to collect Japanese cookware then that doesn't inherently make you ignorant or detached from reality. The model is kind of interesting, but it mostly sounds like a dig by the author leaning heavily on stereotyping groups of people.
Samblee 6y ago
Who knows how it feels to be cheated on by a trusted spouse or to fall a victim of the internet scam, all that have experienced and it was so kind i came in contact with Wizard Harry through his email known as wizardharry@programmer.net, he helped me to unveil the secret plan of my spouse by gaining access to his mobile device and computer, my bitcoin worth $98,509 was stolen by fake brokers and i thought nothing i could do about it but yet he got the funds recovered and I'm happy to be back again to my feet and even stronger than before.

231 points by jger15 6y ago

If you’re interested in this stuff, the book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System by Paul Fussell is an entertaining and insightful book (from 1983, so a bit dated in parts but well worth it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class:_A_Guide_Through_the_American_Status_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class:_A_Guide_Through_the_Ame...

sk5t 6y ago
Good quick read; I think most of it does hold up. Art depicting clowns or cowboys, probably lower class; threadbare but once-good Persian carpets and shelves of books, probably higher class. The "top out of sight" class is an element most people probably don't think of.

ryan-duve 6y ago

This is a really well-written article. I am not sure if this spin on the cited references is novel but it is the first I am seeing any of it. I am jarred how well it describes the "middle" of society, including how many of my own behaviors/beliefs are captured. One thing I am having trouble with is the connection between Michael and the "educated" ladder, even though a big portion of the article is dedicated to that. I will have to mull on it more before I can convincingly respond to "So you think Michael Scott represents the PhDs of the world?" If you are the author, kudos to you.

walshemj 6y ago
Its interesting seeing this formal non American pov and how the American Office is very denatured compared to the UK one. So "the good place" is prestige TV! would not that be more like discussing the latest "in our time" about the plague of Justinian over the water cooler ?
redisman 6y ago
The metaphor definitely breaks in the middle ladder. Why not just do labor, middle management, owners like in the first part of the piece? I get that everyone hates NYT opinion writers but that’s like 20 people - not a social class. Also do software engineers fall into upper middle class or high skilled labor? I think they’re in both. Or maybe I just don’t have any interactions with the middle ladder in real life and I’m clueless
- akhilcacharya 6y ago
  I'm convinced software engineers can be part of either of the 3 ladders, but most are in the upper middle class set.
  - niyikiza 6y ago
    Is it really the same person? - Coder/programmer (L1) - Software Engineer (L2) - Entrepreneur [in the software industry] (L3)
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  The tops of the ladder are there to show what people further down aspire to be. The idea is that if you are a building super you daydream about owning a general contractor business. If you’re a VP at an investment bank you dream of being a billionaire hedge fund manager. The conceit is that random lawyers and doctors wish they could be the kinds of lawyers and doctors that could get an Op-Ed published, but I don’t think it works. Maybe most Econ PhDs secretly want to be Paul Krugman. I doubt it, but maybe. But no way I buy most doctors secretly want to be Anthony Fauci.
- superbcarrot 6y ago
  > Why not just do labor, middle management, owners like in the first part of the piece? I think the idea is that the communication styles from the first part carry over to the second. Which means that if you're an university-educated professional or a cultural leader, you mostly communicate through baby-talk and posture-talk. At least that seems to be the author's point, I'm not sure to what extent I agree.
- 6y ago
paultopia 6y ago
Yeah, I really want to know where the author is getting their model of PhDs. Are we talking about literature departments or chemistry labs?
- klyrs 6y ago
  Yeah, I was picturing my math education. He could probably get through calculus with cheating, tutoring, and begging. But I can't see him actually putting in the work to get through 200 level courses, much less grad courses. But, omg, I can't imagine him surviving a chem lab. The whole place would be on fire within a few minutes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

leephillips 6y ago

This made me uncomfortable. So it’s probably accurate.

MilnerRoute 6y ago

See also "The Peter Principle," which famously argued that everyone eventually rises to their level of incompetence. The more interesting question is what do you do in response to that? The Peter Principle books actually argued you should turn down that last promotion. But how do we avoid becoming Michael Scott?

neom 6y ago
Can you recommend some good "The Peter Principle" books? I'm unfamiliar, would love to learn.
- mathgeek 6y ago
  “The Peter Principle” by Laurence J. Peter
  - croissants 6y ago
    Oh geez. Until now, I thought the "Peter" in the Peter Principle was the biblical Peter, and I interpreted it as an indictment of Peter eventually getting promoted to a quasi-Jesus role as leader after Jesus...left the scene.
greesil 6y ago
Keep doing actual coding at least some of the time. Unless you care about income, in which case try to ascend the ziggurat.
the-dude 6y ago
How do you know it is your last promotion?
sokoloff 6y ago
The thing about the Peter Principle is how do you know which is the "last promotion" that you should turn down? No one should turn down the first promotion (from "fresh into the workforce" to "basically competent developer" [or journeyman welder/electrician/plumber or whatever the equivalent is for your field]). After that it gets murky because everyone has their own abilities and willingness to do what it takes to compensate for their own flaws and take advantage of their strengths.

djohnston 6y ago

I see myself in here, particularly w.r.t. learning about other cultures and histories and using that knowledge as talking points. I guess the only thing to do is break out of 3 tiers entirely, like Creed Bratton.

l3st2o 6y ago

This article itself is Michael Scott.

the_local_host 6y ago
The author missed a genuine opportunity to wrap it up with "Wrote The Michael Scott Theory of Social Class? Definitely, definitely Michael Scott."
- croissants 6y ago
  This would kind of weaken the argument, because there's no way that Michael Scott would ever come up with a codified analysis of human class and interaction and put it on the internet. (It seems like a thoroughly Dwight move, though?)
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    Funnily enough, Dwight did have an in character blog during the running of the show, and something like this actually would fit pretty well onto it https://web.archive.org/web/20090225001105/http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/dwights-blog/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090225001105/http://www.nbc.co...

dash2 6y ago

Meh.... This has a real "I'm 14 and this is deep" vibe. Like a teenager who thinks their dad is a loser, and that the real men are the guys at the bottom in tough blue collar jobs, or at the top in power suits being Wolves of Wall Street. Insights like this can be fun, but they're for the third beer with your buddies, not for writing down.

s5300 6y ago
Very correct Michael Scott.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
brighton36 6y ago
It's very odd that 'baby talk' is professional. I don't think society was always this way. I also respect anyone who questions why this is the case. Assuming it's an efficiency, we should be able to justify this behavior.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I'd be surprised if there was any place or time where people didn't placate and humor those with power over them. The article's label of "babytalk" for this behavior just obscures the observation; it would be like calling typical code review language "fussytalk" and then expounding on how fussy programmers are.
- monkeycantype 6y ago
  I worked as a software developer, in a non software company, I sat in an odd spot off to the side half way up the org chart. The non software people climbed the hierarchy not because they are competent at their jobs, in fact a highly competent person will often be passed over for promotion because they are useful where they are - but because of how they negotiated very complex social networks. A senior manager, my manager at the time felt that with very little skill to separate the people working at the company, ascendancy was about positioning yourself in bullying networks, and he described this this kind of 'baby talk' as a subservience signal in which you were surrendering to and accepting a manager as your patron and any further advancement you made was by their grace. If you chose to do the 'honest talk' with someone senior to you, it came with a risk and a potential reward, you had to do it well enough to convince them you were a worthy formidable peer and an ally. If you did it unconvincingly you would be struck down. This seemed to be a widely held worldview and therefore more or less the social reality in the non software parts of the business. I was free to do 'honest talk' because as a software person, I was clearly to the side of the game, it wasn't really possible for me to fall or climb too far.

f430 6y ago

Oh good god, I hope nobody on HN takes this seriously and that they can read between the lines that this a joke.

porb121 6y ago
if it is a joke, it pretty soundly failed to be funny.
- f430 6y ago
  thanks for proving my point.

PartiallyTyped 6y ago

While climbing the middle ladder, something snapped in me, or perhaps covid accelerated the process. A year or so ago, I was working on my undergraduate thesis project in deep RL, I had been working on the project for 8-9 months at the time. Due to covid, lack of support and computational resources from the university, I was behind, and making progress was difficult. Shortly after I submitted the thesis, I felt an eerie disillusionment with the absurdity of the middle class, and whatever we are all doing, the pretentiousness, how we are all stuck in our own little bubbles where we find ways to feel special and 'serious' about things, how we focus and advertise the niche-ness of our field, and how we all advertise our lives in social media and so on. Sam Esmail put it greatly in the first episode of Mr. Robot in Elliot's monologue on what in society disappoints him so much [1] and concludes that the reason is that we are all cowards, we are looking to be sedated. Which is absolutely true, capitalism feeds on that, bought something?, bam dopamine rush, got a promotion to the same shitty position but with more responsibilities ? congratulations, another dopamine rush. Buying overpriced sushi and eating it with that chopstick skill you have mastered, another rush. Sharing our lives on the internet bam rush, and you know what, of course we need to share pictures with our friends, it's the contract, we scratch each other's back here, and the funny thing is, it is never enough, and it will never be enough [2]. Deep down, we all know that the world is utter shit, but living in these bubbles allows us to pretend that it is not so bad, because that is easier, it allows us to live with the situation instead of taking the roads and demanding that things change, if anything, why should we demand a change if "it's working for us", if whatever we have gives us a dose big enough to forget but small enough to function? Heck, even if we start fixing the world, Machiavelli argues that given the opportunity, the middle class will bring it back [3], because the new state of affairs will not enable that kind of detachment. The problem with this disillusionment is that you aren't willing to be sedated, not anymore, you realize how shit the world is, how everyone is pretending and is unwilling to accept it that we are not in control of anything. But what the f do I know. All I can say is that I have seen and experienced the 'Michael Scott' behaviour from the people the author mentions, but again, I live in my own little bubble. [1] https://soundcloud.com/flibber/mr-robot-101-elliots-monologue-about-society https://soundcloud.com/flibber/mr-robot-101-elliots-monologu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_adaptation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_adaptation [3] In "il prince", when a new prince conquers a region with the help of aristocrats, if he changes the norm, he needs to squash any chance of future opposition as the previous norm worked for the aristocrats and they will try to revert back. Edit: I must have hit some nerves. Sorry for telling the silent part out loud, Michael.

jariel 6y ago

It's neat although I'm not sure how 'right' it is. This is also possibly just a re-articulation of age-old delineations between working/middle and upper class sentiments. I think the working/middle class are the same ladder though and most of them share the same values in that they are no psychopath barbarians. The right-hand ladder is actually 2 parts: The ibankers belong squarely in the middle class rung. They are just workers like everyone else, and frankly, as preformative. Most of them are regular people and not sociopaths. The difference with some 'banking' roles - is that they are playing in games of 'dealing and leverage' - not so much value creation. So they're naturally going to acclimate to a different way of viewing thew world. They play zero-sum games whereas everyone else is doing work, or trying/pretending to. They have access to the 'old money' class and they see the potentiality. But really - the lower rungs of banking are just upper-class elite. The 'old money' are not necessarily sociopaths - they are often quite nice people, they vary from down-to-earth to detached to egoist. Maybe not nice enough to give up their money but not necessarily bad people. And living off of a stipend of limited wealth can give a sense of the limitations of money and these people are not wagging their money in your face. There is a hugely fundamental difference between 'barbarian' like Donald Trump, or Putin, and kids from the Bertelsmann family because those who are 'out of the game' and living off old money are super effete, it's not like they are going to be that important or influential. They are useless and they know it. I also dispute the morale differentials etc. I think there's some truthiness there, but it's a function of aspiration: the 'working class' have more likely than not accepted their lot while the 'middle class' are competing for surpluses. Finally, I'm not so cynical. Those 'middle class' people do important things. It's not easy to be a dentist, doctor, write software, manage people etc..

nicbou 6y ago

I think it boils down to having enough free time and money to care about dumb things. Your basic needs are covered, so you have spare energy for various causes and weird hobbies. I suspect that baby talk is just how you answer to someone you can't relate to. I answer just the same when someone tells me about sports, or their racing horses. It's just what you default to when there's a cultural disconnect, but the desire to show respect.

anm89 6y ago

Every person not in the bottom rung is a "sociopath"? Honestly I get a little tinge of joy out of the bitterness of these whiners sometimes. If you think every person in life that has gotten a different outcome than you is a "sociopath" your are probably something a lot closer to a sociopath than average (ie a seeming total lack of ability to empathize with a vast swath of people based on superficial differences)

ludston 6y ago
I really enjoyed this comment, because it managed to say both, "I take joy from other peoples suffering", and "I'm not a sociopath, you are."

greesil 6y ago

If you stare at clouds, you might see patterns in them. That doesn't mean that's the governing principle behind their formation.

JimTheMan 6y ago
That's a beautiful phrase. This article reminds me of a Karate School that doesn't spar. It looks impressive, but put it in an mma cage and it quickly falls apart.
girvo 6y ago
The human capability for pattern recognition is still beautiful and amazing to me — and hey, you can still find interesting models that have some value from them, even if you won’t elucidate the root cause.
- greesil 6y ago
  I disagree completely, at least in this context. If the model doesn't explain the variance, maybe it isn't a good model to use. If you're making art or some other creative endeavor, then yeah, fantastic. If you're trying to show us how the world works, nope.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

moralestapia 6y ago

Michael O' Church has written some amazing blog posts. If you tolerate his style, I highly recommend reading him. Too bad he fell out of grace from the SV elite (and I can totally see why). I wish he continued writing as much as he was back in the time.

6chars 6y ago

I don't think the author really understands the characterization of Michael Scott. I can't imagine the hypothetical scene of Michael Scott taking pride in knowing how to use chopsticks. That sounds way more out of character to me than having him not know how to use them. Hard for me to take the article seriously when it has to make up character traits for Michael Scott to make its point. I believe that the type of person the author thinks Michael Scott is exists and sucks (and I'm probably one of them), but I don't think Michael Scott is one of them.

vlunkr 6y ago
The other part is that Micheal doesn't posturetalk to his employees. He desperately wants them to be his friends, because he has none. It's one of his defining characteristics.
redisman 6y ago
Right, Michael Scott would tell someone he of course knows how to use them and then end up in a Japanese restaurant with that person and be found out to be the fool once again.
- 6chars 6y ago
  That I can see. Or he would fixate on the fact that someone else does know how to use them and get competitive about it, trying and failing hard to show that he's also worldly.
- gibb0n 6y ago
  Michael Scott would make fun of the chopsticks, use them to play drums etc. say something racist, and then search for a fork or spoon.
croissants 6y ago
I agree, this bit in particular seems wrong to me: > Posturetalk is everything said by Michael, Dwight and Andy, to anyone: the staff, the execs, or each other. Everything they say is some form or another of meaningless, performative babbling. I only really remember the first four seasons of The Office, but I remember Michael as being a very skilled salesman and a very unskilled manager. But Michael's skill as a salesman comes from a genuine desire to connect with people and form relationships --- recall the episode where he takes a second job as a telemarketer and keeps deviating from the call scripts to ask people about their lives. In that sense, a big chunk of what Michael says is pretty close to the opposite of performative?

creddit 6y ago

I found myself mildly nodding along to this waiting for the moment of clarity where he describes more fully the elite ladder but he doesn't and so I have no idea how to contrast this middle tier with the upper tier to see distinctions. What's an example of the Elite behaviors/language? How would I know Powertalk when I see it? What would an Elite do/have to show their true status? I definitely accept that I'm not an elite. I am "wealthy" in a strictly relative financial sense but I have no political power/connections derived from it and have never tried to gain any. This has always been my personal distinction between say myself and the true elites. Wealth doesn't inherently get you power and I don't really even know how I would leverage what wealth I have to gain power despite this being a potentially viable avenue. Is this not a much better distinction?

krrishd 6y ago
The Gervais Principle (which this article is a riff off of) covers what you’re looking for (and what the author here left implicit): 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-... specifically the “Sociopath” as described in the Gervais Principle == the elite
- creddit 6y ago
  But they're so different to make the comparison moot, no? Class and the power structure of organizations are dramatically different.
jariel 6y ago
The middle class are just workers, who are paid more. The preformative aspects come from competition with their peers. It's why white collar workers are so bent on doing public speaking things, TED Talks etc.. It's hard to be a VP you have to somehow get everyone else to think you're 'that much better' than the workers. Watch the news: almost every contributor is making a performance. Trump's the 'Apprentice' is a giant bit of performance, nothing to do with reality. The elite use leverage. Think of them as VCs. They don't 'work' like we do, they negotiate hard deals with workers and try to grab all the surpluses. It's really just a basic take on working/middle class + capital class.

nexthash 6y ago

This article and the theory it presents has some interesting intersections with how society actually works (i.e. the elite being anyone who has real leverage). I liked the depiction of the intellectual classes, but I believe that rather than hiding from reality they are commenting on it and influencing society's culture, not having to worry about material security. Also, the categories/ladders are looser than one would assume. Cultural and labor leaders, if determined, can seize power for themselves, as seen with the rise of the Soviet Union and Islamic Republic of Iran. I personally don't believe in the "babytalk" notion: this depends on individual character, and any common lingo would be based solely on the pressures of position the individual is in.

mr_cyborg 6y ago

The Gervais Principle is a great read for fans of The Office and/or people who work at large companies. Nice to see it get a shout out. 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-...

perrygeo 6y ago
This. The OP is effectively a re-wording of the Gervais principal - same idea with slightly less words in blog form. It's a bit ingenious to claim a whole new theory.
- midasuni 6y ago
  Did you mean ingenious or ingenuous?
  - whoisburbansky 6y ago
    Disingenuous would make more sense in the context of GP’s comment, but I too have a hard time seeing how ingenious works here.
- the_gipsy 6y ago
  I had the same impression, but I _did_ find the translation to these three "social ladders" worthwhile.
- creddit 6y ago
  His theory is new because it's applied to Class. It's far worse because it is poorly fleshed out.
tlarkworthy 6y ago
Beware, it makes you aware. I can't take a power structure seriously anymore, which, weirdly, made me very promotable as the principle foretold.
- 6y ago

oxfeed65261 6y ago

The essay itself is of course an example of posturetalk.

TameAntelope 6y ago
I see it as an attempt at self reflection...

z5h 6y ago

Interesting perspective. Without agreeing or disagreeing, I wonder where, on which ladder I’d want to be. Old Money is probably best, but, I don’t really have a choice. Seems Michael Scott is the next best option.

mdocherty 6y ago
Marry rich!

vlunkr 6y ago

Perhaps the most annoying thing about this article is the built-in defense that "if you don't get it, you're a Micheal." I see many people in the comments making comments like this.

themodelplumber 6y ago
Intriguing point. I'd add that the "if you don't get it" phrase seems a lot more like a Michael Scott character's take on things (meanwhile--do they really get it? Or is there more than one perspective to get?). :-)

pk_kinetic 6y ago

I was hoping for some payoff, like if it was possible for me to somehow hop over to the elite ladder and ascend to the level of barbarian.

superbcarrot 6y ago
According to the article you can be a loser, a sociopath or Michael Scott. And the harder you're trying, the more likely it is that you're Michael Scott.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

javajosh 6y ago

I believe America has 4 Great Games, with 4 traditional city centers: Knowledge (Boston), Money (New York), Fame (Hollywood), Power (DC). (Arguably there is a fifth, Tech (Silicon Valley), which is Knowledge, Money & Power, all rolled together, and in that order). The Office only takes place inside a small, mundane part of the Money game, and I think the middle ladder in the OP's post muddles Money and Knowledge. Note that all the games are used as backdrops, Power being the more usual pick: all legal/police/crime content inhabits that space. Its also important to note that the Office takes place in the UK and America, winners of the second world war, and so the ones where the Games have grown in size and complexity monotonically for over 100 years, and the players are fat, rich, and lazy (characteristic of late stage capitalism). The lack of external stressor (e.g. competition, frugal clients, and so on) is what enables the company, and its employees, to be detached from reality and still survive despite these costly distractions. This detachment is the inevitable cost of great wealth and long periods of uninterrupted success, and is the mechanism by which large scale structures, like civilizations, regress to the mean.

ErikAugust 6y ago

Who is an example of a barbarian?

monkeycantype 6y ago

There are disagreements here about whether the details are correct, but if you stick to the concept of languages, I think this is brilliant. I work in an environment with extreme wage disparity between the stratified layers described here, with me in the clueless zone, and the languages described here are mandatory in order to deflect analysis and discussion of the power structures and the trivial and grotesque ways they are routinely abused.

themodelplumber 6y ago

This kind of social class theory is unfortunately not one that yields a lot of leverage, while simultaneously promising to cause a lot of hurt. (It also reads as if it betrays some hurt feelings on the part of its creator, IMO). I think this is why it's traditionally, historically, so incendiary to talk about class theory. Also, here we are at the point in history when even reclusive billionaires are starting to change and improve the way they contribute to the world. Some are even giving away all their money before they die, which was once seen as a feat the bible itself couldn't envision. Michael Scott is also given occasional but shy credit on the show for being someone whose values freely interconnect with those of his workers, which to me was an understated win of the series. The fact is, Michael can't be the best of everybody, even though he tries. But he can sure reflect their good back onto them, even when he's completely exploding an otherwise harmless situation! It's an underrated gift. We need more of that good-reflecting in the world, and less criticism of the kind that reflects a hopeless situation.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Discussing social class is so incendiary in America specifically because Americans have convinced themselves for a long time that they only have economic classes and no social classes. Discussing social class therefore became a taboo, as it breaches the polite fiction that America is a classless society. I call it a polite fiction because if you pay attention there are tons of ways that Americans find a way to separate social class from economic class (e.g. “money can’t buy taste” as a way to dismiss someone as being low class and rich). Of course, like any way to divide up people there is ample opportunity for harmful and mean stereotypes. But I don’t think that alone is why discussing class is so explosive in America.

totemandtoken 6y ago

This was an interesting take but I'm a little disappointed that the author didn't take the language idea further. As in, in this author's conception of class based language, what's an example of "straight talk"? How do the elites "babytalk" to the Michael Scott-gentry middle class? Most interestingly, what would "powertalk" be in this conception of class? Would it be raw datasets and financial spreadsheets? Because that seems at odds with the "barbarians" he posits via Church are at the top of the elite ladder. Or are the "barbarians" ruthless state-leaders who only speak in intelligence reports and legal/military briefs and those types of documents are "powertalk"? Interesting classifications nonetheless...

wcunning 6y ago
Babytalk from the Elites to the Middle Class would be something like the all staff meetings for Penguin staff complaining that Penguin Canada is publishing another Jordan Peterson book or Politico staff complaining that Ben Shapiro was invited to write an entry in their outside opinion section. Or potentially some of the corporate higher up talking up social responsibility actions that are at best token. I'm more interested in the "real talk" between Elites and Losers -- what's that look like?
- twirlip 6y ago
  In Brent Staples's Parallel Time, the author documents Rupert Murdoch after he bought the Chicago Sun-Times. Murdoch points at people and tells them, "I own you and you and you." Conversely, there's the Alex Baldwin monologue at the beginning of Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- totemandtoken 6y ago
  Good point about corporate-speak as elite-to-middle babytalk. I would hazard a guess that the closest thing to straight talk is at the possible inception of a union. Not after the union is formed and established - I don't think there's a lot of straight talk between UAW and GM nowadays - but if someone like Musk is afraid the gigafactory workers are banding together, he might be forced to talk to them directly. Unfortunately, I don't think this "real talk" is ever recorded or broadcast. The most stark example I can think of is when Emperor Hirohito informed the Japanese citizens of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki[1], but funny enough that is mostly known for how confusing it was for the average Japanses citizen to understand what was going on. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Voice_Broadcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Voice_Broadcast

stephc_int13 6y ago

There are at least two very different things mixed in this text and no logic reasoning. Paraphrasing an idea a few times is a very weak proof, to say the least. And mixing a few random opinions on top is not improving the whole... Pretty poor article.

giantg2 6y ago

My theory is that social structures only fuck me over.

Gollapalli 6y ago

In reading this I have but a single question: How does one become a barbarian?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

mistersquid 6y ago

I partly disagree with those who assert Michael Scott does not know how to use chopsticks. Scott does know how to use chopsticks and is so proud of his “skill” he insufferably tutors chopstick maladroits regarding technique. However, Scott’s technique is both suboptimal and childish, his grasp of the sticks conforming to how children are taught to use chopsticks and offering less precision than techniques which adults use. [0] Furthermore, Scott’s not actually very skilled at using chopsticks. He’s a step above stabbing food with them or using them with one in each hand, but his mastery of the kids’ way of using chopsticks is barely better than rudimentary. Often while lifting food from his from his plate and into his mouth, Scott will clumsily drop the morsel back onto the plate and chomp at empty air. Watching Michael Scott eat with chopsticks is to be embarrassed for him, while he himself remains oblivious and proud. Michael Scott will replace his chopsticks with a spoon for the last 25% of his meal. Lastly, the linked article is a marvelous troll guaranteed to rile even the most self-assured (and they are nothing if not self-assured) member of the Whytian Clueless. [0] In my corner of South Korean culture, the kids’ way of holding chopsticks involves the thumb, index, middle, and ring fingers. The adult way omits the ring finger.

underwater 6y ago

I can get on board with the idea that to other people and other classes the things you aspire to achieve are silly, and the way you act to get those things is ridiculous. But the idea that the blue collar workers and elites "get it" while the bourgeoisie are fooling themselves comes across as ... self loathing, perhaps? You could just as easily make the argument that the aspirations of the blue collar are shallow and meaningless. And or the elites are sociopathic because, hey, we all turn to dust in the end.

okareaman 6y ago

For me the takeaway is that the labor class and the owner class have clarity about the station and purpose in life while the managerial class doesn't because they don't know which end of the scale they fall on. Are they glorified labor or almost ruling class?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

danbruder 6y ago

Oh crap. I’m Michael Scott.

motohagiography 6y ago

I get these on Dancos mailing list and haven't finished article yet but reading the comment thread I'm super interested in how provocative it was to HN. The Gervais Principle was a great/cynical popular summary of some more refined ideas in management theory. Generalizing it to a theory of post-internet globalized class seems straight forward, with the caveat that it can only be as useful as any theory of class. It's the Marxist ceiling, like how classical Newtonian physics is fantastic for modelling coarse engineering problems, and loses coherence when applied to the nature of reality, and doesnt provide much more than some metaphors for things as normal as economics. Reading through it, I don't think this was written so much as an explanatory piece for an HN audience as it was to find others thinking about these problems.

rootsudo 6y ago

So much writing for just stating the "Peter Principal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle And not one mention of it in that entire substack either, though few others mentioned it on here before me. :) That's good. I always enjoy discovering something backwards, e.g. through experience and then learn it's already documented.

jjj123 6y ago

The part about the upper middle class (myself included) being detached from reality is spot on. You have no need to worry about money other than the desire to upgrade status symbols. You have no real power or path to power, so you don’t understand that either. You’re floating blissfully in the middle reading about mushroom foraging while the poor get poorer and the elite siphon even more wealth and power.

torginus 6y ago

I kind of disagree with the whole model, or at least as it pertains to large organizations. I have spent too many unfortunate years at a big Enterprisey software development organization, and have concluded that the real sociopaths/incompetents/climbers lie in middle management. I would even go as far to say that if the middle management has no technical responsibilities, and as such entirely is detached from the work of engineers, nearly 100% of them come from the aforementioned categories. Let me try to elaborate: Upper management is generally characterised by a good awareness of market needs/conditions, what needs/can be delivered by the next release, and the available and required resources needed to deliver features on time. They have both the power to make significant decisions, and are usually held accountable for delivering features. Non-technical management usually draws its ranks from MBAs who think of engineers as pathetic nerds, engineering people who either don't want to code or suck at it, and culty types who try to apply every hip development methodology/pop psychology hack to hopefully improve the performance of engineers (which is usually accompanied by universal resentment). They usually have the luxury of playing head games with the people under them (I'm fairly convinced most pop management MBA bullshit exists to make their work and decision processes totally opaque/give them control to do whatever they want as well as to gaslight their 'subjects' about their perceived performance). Since this is getting long I'll cherry pick 2 examples: I spent 3 days (+overtime) debugging an issue that involved a bug in native code that created memory corruption in the Java side of the app, which naturally produced weird behaviour - I got berated for taking too long, as well as not writing a detailed enough post-bug report of the root cause of the issue (why was this even a thing). Another time, some MM came up a great idea of improving software quality (which was shit due to the huge amounts of legacy code we weren't allowed to touch) - which essentially boiled down to filling out an extra field in Jira, making a compilation of said fields in a PowerPoint presentation, and having a 3 hour meeting about said fields, and based on the results, probably defining some extra wishy-washy action items to follow in the future. Naturally, this added an extra responsibility to our understaffed, overworked team, which was created a naturally hostile vibe in us. However one of the least competent, and morally flexible guys (the guy who literally couldn't solve a single problem on his own, but had a talent for making his problems somebody elses too - and advertise the result as 'teamwork') naturally stepped up to drive the idea - and was promoted to some management position a few months later, partially due to these efforts. In summary, I feel like unlike upper management, and engineers, middle management serves no purpose in most organizations, and they know that, so they create their niche by mostly less then ethical purposes, so they get to play petty despots with some, but not much tangible power, and little to no responsibility/accountability.

philosopher1234 6y ago

I believe the function of this article, as evidenced by some comments in this thread, is to believably criticize media like the NYT or Twitter. If you take the authors world view as true, and you identify yourself as a laborer in the conservative notion, for instance maybe you like Donald trump or Jordan Peterson and hate critical theory, then you see the world clearly and you have friends in high places, unlike the clueless left academics and media who opposes you. The left, simply because they are in the middle, are universally wrong and mocked by everyone who isn’t as delusional as they are. I suspect this article and it’s author of having underlying (and deniable) partisan motivations.

pavlov 6y ago
The examples picked by the author are evidence of this bias. Triathlon hobby, “right amount of hops”, and PhD are the author’s examples of supposed middle-grade cluelessness. Are those any different from a hunting hobby, “right caliber of gun”, and being a country club member? Presumably the latter would fall on the author’s sanctified leftmost ladder of Labor where people only talk straight and aspire for reasonable things. Yet the article makes no effort to justify why certain hobbies and pursuits are “loser real” and others are “clueless fake.”

mobb_solo 6y ago

"Like" and subscribe to this Content? Michael Scott.

rexreed 6y ago

I find it ironic that this piece is written from the perspective of the so-called "Educated Gentry", basically the same kind of performative babble of mid-tier cluelessness.

caf 6y ago
Yes - I wonder exactly where on those three ladders the author places themself?

ghiculescu 6y ago

I just read both this and the Michael Church article it links to. I think they are arguing the opposite in many ways. Eg Alex Danck calls the gentry ladder clueless, while Michael Church says they will lead us to the future. It’s hard to see how they are both right.

hyperpallium2 6y ago

Interesting.

pablosanta 6y ago

OP could have added Andy’s need to remind everybody he attended Cornell as another proof of his point.

ls_waiting 6y ago

"Oftentimes. when people are miserable, they will want to make other people miserable, too. But it never helps."

caf 6y ago

I think the author has met very few PhDs - in my experience, as a group they're very aware that if they continue to work in research, their work will neither be important to most people outside of their field, nor reap great economic rewards. In fact the more I think about it, the more this reads as an anti-academic screed - basically dunking on those with high educational attainments or artistic abilities, but only a middle-of-the-road income to show for it. And also triathletes.

pickledish 6y ago

For an article that takes a more serious look at a very similar (analogous, IMO) three-slice breakdown of socioeconomic class in America, I’d recommend this article “the birth of a new American aristocracy”, as the tiers of the pyramid in this article seem to map one to one onto the three slices in the Atlantic article, and even though I read it years ago it’s still one of my favorites. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-bir...

subjectsigma 6y ago

One time somebody posted an article (whose name escapes me now that) which asserted that "Endurance sports are the domain of white people because they need artificial pain and struggle to make their otherwise meaningless lives meaningful." It was such a lazy and pompous ideological hit-and-run. I'm getting a lot of the same vibes from this piece. If you have disposable income and want to collect Japanese cookware then that doesn't inherently make you ignorant or detached from reality. The model is kind of interesting, but it mostly sounds like a dig by the author leaning heavily on stereotyping groups of people.

Samblee 6y ago

Who knows how it feels to be cheated on by a trusted spouse or to fall a victim of the internet scam, all that have experienced and it was so kind i came in contact with Wizard Harry through his email known as wizardharry@programmer.net, he helped me to unveil the secret plan of my spouse by gaining access to his mobile device and computer, my bitcoin worth $98,509 was stolen by fake brokers and i thought nothing i could do about it but yet he got the funds recovered and I'm happy to be back again to my feet and even stronger than before.