Proof-by-sanssouci was less for the hotbed of sophistry which is Sand Hill and more for the sort of philosopher who would claim we must wait until death (for va

Proof-by-sanssouci was less for the hotbed of sophistry which is Sand Hill and more for the sort of philosopher who would claim we must wait until death (for vampires, Schützenberger would say a terminal loop suffices) to call someone fortunate, for (due to non-monotonicity of the quick) until then the best we can do is to label them lucky. You never count your money When you're sitting at the table There'll be time enough for counting When the dealings done Having been severely handicapped by never having seen either of The Offices, I finally schlepped through Gervais Principle[0]. Here are my maps to rather more canonical fiction: Animal Farm: {sociopaths:pigs+Benjamin, clueless:dogs+Boxer[1], losers:"the animals"} 1984: {sociopaths:inner party, clueless:outer party[2], losers:proles} (and of course in this model the Great American Fiction would be "in this country, we're all clueless") I don't know if the HN thread ever touched on it, but the major drawback of "Founder Mode"[3] seems to be that it relies upon internal development of sociopaths, for what external (or board-affiliated?) sociopath is going to want to be involved with an org in which their fief is constantly being meddled with by their liege[4,5]? [0] use of partial orders would make GP crisper, but probably less explainable to its target audience? note the thermodynamic argument that Rao makes: a sociopath isn't concerned so much with either the full observability or control matrices of the clueless+loser system as they are with simple draw/stand pat decisions. You've got to know when to hold them Know when to fold them Know when to walk away And know when to run [1] what about the sheep? they certainly buy wholeheartedly into the pigs' Reality Distortion Field, but other than as cheerleaders, they don't seem to be much use for maintaining the system: more a greek chorus? [2] in particular, Smith is so clueless that he's (or ought to be to any reader over the age of 14) an antihero. There's even a reading where the interview with O'Brien could be taken as a test of sociopath potential, in which Smith (confirming his adolescent A-level results) signals capital-c Clueless. [3] anyone ever say to what extent Glorious Leader Jobs' 100-person retreats created a Nomenklatura at AAPL? [4] this reading makes the charitable assumption that founders are sociopath; if they're clueless then the mentioned drawback would instead be an asset: promoting "founder mode" would be how a guru could keep other sociopaths from cutting in on their piece of the action. [5] I've heard that the brits created de novo a fair amount of South Asian aristocracy, because they assumed that various nabobs they bargained with had had hereditary posts, and the latter, whose lands were compensation for service, not even for life, but only at the pleasure of the raja, weren't about to educate them.