4 ms·

I find it’s a bit dated now, at a high level interesting but he really zooms in on the details until it becomes a kind of nonsense. It was interesting to read a

by ekster 5y ago

I find it’s a bit dated now, at a high level interesting but he really zooms in on the details until it becomes a kind of nonsense. It was interesting to read and think about when it came out, but I don’t really think it is correct, predicts anything in any meaningful way, or even provides a coherent strategy to manipulate others if that’s the path you want to go down in the first place.

kbenson 5y ago
Yeah, when I first read it I thought of it as an interesting and fun theory that was a good read, but I didn't think it was necessarily meant as truth as much as a tool to look at the series and examine it and use ideas and themes presented. For example, I remember the idea of the Losers explained was fairly eye-opening for me. Regardless of the name, the fact that they were a largely savvy group that just chose an entirely different trade-off and decided to treat their jobs purely as a means to an end so they could focus on things they cared about clicked with me in a way that hadn't really before. I mean, I'd worked jobs like that, with a slightly different aim, as a teenager and while going to college, but I was so focused on getting a job more aligned with my interests (which I was lucky enough to do partway through college) that it skewed my view of work and the people around me. The idea of "Losers" made a few things click for me, by linking the middle class expansion of the middle 20th century, the massive manufacturing sector, and the people that were able to live great middle-class lives because of it. These "Losers" are people that have carved out their own little chunk of that dream, and are consciously putting the requisite amount of effort in to not be fired and/or feel like they aren't absolute shit at their job, as nothing more or nothing less is really needed for them to meet their real goals, which are not work related. There's something to envy in that. Does that mean everyone fits in the categories presented, or that all the categories are accurate in all or even most respects? No, but nevertheless, as a prism with which to compare and reassess my own experiences, I found it extremely useful.
- haraball 5y ago
  I found this blog post [1] on twitter where people were looking for literature on "office politics". It has some good points: > Instead, I think of them in terms of what the modern corporate structure has done to them: Broken the losers, tricked the clueless, and forced the sociopaths into ethical conundrums. > To be specific, I propose that we name the losers, clueless and sociopaths to “pragmatists, idealists and opportunists.” Their roles, relationships and dynamics remain the same ... [1]: https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/ https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/

by ekster 5y ago

kbenson 5y ago

Yeah, when I first read it I thought of it as an interesting and fun theory that was a good read, but I didn't think it was necessarily meant as truth as much as a tool to look at the series and examine it and use ideas and themes presented. For example, I remember the idea of the Losers explained was fairly eye-opening for me. Regardless of the name, the fact that they were a largely savvy group that just chose an entirely different trade-off and decided to treat their jobs purely as a means to an end so they could focus on things they cared about clicked with me in a way that hadn't really before. I mean, I'd worked jobs like that, with a slightly different aim, as a teenager and while going to college, but I was so focused on getting a job more aligned with my interests (which I was lucky enough to do partway through college) that it skewed my view of work and the people around me. The idea of "Losers" made a few things click for me, by linking the middle class expansion of the middle 20th century, the massive manufacturing sector, and the people that were able to live great middle-class lives because of it. These "Losers" are people that have carved out their own little chunk of that dream, and are consciously putting the requisite amount of effort in to not be fired and/or feel like they aren't absolute shit at their job, as nothing more or nothing less is really needed for them to meet their real goals, which are not work related. There's something to envy in that. Does that mean everyone fits in the categories presented, or that all the categories are accurate in all or even most respects? No, but nevertheless, as a prism with which to compare and reassess my own experiences, I found it extremely useful.

haraball 5y ago
I found this blog post [1] on twitter where people were looking for literature on "office politics". It has some good points: > Instead, I think of them in terms of what the modern corporate structure has done to them: Broken the losers, tricked the clueless, and forced the sociopaths into ethical conundrums. > To be specific, I propose that we name the losers, clueless and sociopaths to “pragmatists, idealists and opportunists.” Their roles, relationships and dynamics remain the same ... [1]: https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/ https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/