3 ms·

Hot take: being clueless is better than these essays make it out to be. The examples are all really socially annoying people (Michael, Dwight) but I've known so

Hot take: being clueless is better than these essays make it out to be. The examples are all really socially annoying people (Michael, Dwight) but I've known some pretty nice and pleasant middle managers who had generally great lives. They probably could've gotten all of that with less work but perfectly hitting the Pareto frontier is quite difficult.

the_af 7mo ago
According to this theory, the Clueless are the ones who suffer the most. They invest most, they care about made up goals nobody else cares about, they play by rules everyone else thinks are dumb, they feel loyal to a company that doesn't love them back, and because they are more invested in the company, they are the ones who feel the loss the most when the sociopaths pull the rug. I think it's actually the Losers who have it better: they are simply not invested enough, they are replaceable but also find their place in other companies, and in any case, failure affects us-- I mean, them -- less simply because they are not invested as much and they never felt any loyalty. "Loser" is a loaded term because it sounds like the cultural, lowercase loser ("so and so is such a loser!") but it actually means "loser in the game of maximum capitalist profit and power". But if you're not really playing that game, being a loser at it isn't so bad.
- cshimmin 7mo ago
  Yeah perhaps a better term for Loser is Abstainer. Because the Sociopaths also can certainly lose at the game of maximum capitalist profit. Loser/Abstainer just chooses not to play the game.
  - the_af 7mo ago
    Fully agreed. I think "Loser" is a misnomer. And indeed, going by the essay, the Sociopaths can also lose big... they are willing to risk it all for personal gain, but it can end very badly for them if they miss their window, their manipulations get exposed, or decide to do illegal things to get ahead (high profile cases in my mind: Enron, Epstein, etc).
    - orthoxerox 7mo ago
      The names come from a cartoon that predates Rao's essay. He simply reused them because they mostly work. Just like the Sociopaths are not all literal sociopaths, the Losers are not all literal losers.
      - the_af 7mo ago
        Yes, I understand this. I was simply making this explicit, it was a good idea to clarify that neither Losers nor Sociopaths match the common definition of those terms.
  - throw4847285 7mo ago
    The problem with these theories is that they fall apart as soon as you start adding or modifying the types. Because they aren't actually correct, just simple and flattering.
    - the_af 7mo ago
      I think it'd be more accurate to say that in their neat essay form they are incorrect/incomplete, but that there's a kernel of truth to them. Essays like this want to package an idea into a nice, easy to understand thing that has some punch to it. Reality is more complex.
- lukas099 7mo ago
  The Clueless is the person who actually believes his work makes a difference and wants to do a good job. Not necessarily a terrible way to live, although it should be acknowledged that the Loser frees up time and energy to devote to other things, notably family.
  - the_af 7mo ago
    (According to the theory) it is a terrible way to live, because everything the Clueless believes is false. The Clueless believe their work makes a difference, but it doesn't. They believe it matters they do a good job, but it doesn't truly matter except for the advancement and power plays of the Sociopaths. They believe themselves "company men", and are loyal to a company that despises them and sees them as completely expendable. The Losers understand this, and therefore devote their energy to other things outside work, where they find meaning in life. (Again, I understand this is what the theory states and doesn't necessarily reflect reality. But I do think there's a kernel of truth to it.)
    - Singletoned 7mo ago
      You are assuming that there's something bad about everything you believe being false. There's a fair amount of evidence that it's a good thing. EG religious people being happier and living longer

the_af 7mo ago

According to this theory, the Clueless are the ones who suffer the most. They invest most, they care about made up goals nobody else cares about, they play by rules everyone else thinks are dumb, they feel loyal to a company that doesn't love them back, and because they are more invested in the company, they are the ones who feel the loss the most when the sociopaths pull the rug. I think it's actually the Losers who have it better: they are simply not invested enough, they are replaceable but also find their place in other companies, and in any case, failure affects us-- I mean, them -- less simply because they are not invested as much and they never felt any loyalty. "Loser" is a loaded term because it sounds like the cultural, lowercase loser ("so and so is such a loser!") but it actually means "loser in the game of maximum capitalist profit and power". But if you're not really playing that game, being a loser at it isn't so bad.

cshimmin 7mo ago
Yeah perhaps a better term for Loser is Abstainer. Because the Sociopaths also can certainly lose at the game of maximum capitalist profit. Loser/Abstainer just chooses not to play the game.
- the_af 7mo ago
  Fully agreed. I think "Loser" is a misnomer. And indeed, going by the essay, the Sociopaths can also lose big... they are willing to risk it all for personal gain, but it can end very badly for them if they miss their window, their manipulations get exposed, or decide to do illegal things to get ahead (high profile cases in my mind: Enron, Epstein, etc).
  - orthoxerox 7mo ago
    The names come from a cartoon that predates Rao's essay. He simply reused them because they mostly work. Just like the Sociopaths are not all literal sociopaths, the Losers are not all literal losers.
    - the_af 7mo ago
      Yes, I understand this. I was simply making this explicit, it was a good idea to clarify that neither Losers nor Sociopaths match the common definition of those terms.
- throw4847285 7mo ago
  The problem with these theories is that they fall apart as soon as you start adding or modifying the types. Because they aren't actually correct, just simple and flattering.
  - the_af 7mo ago
    I think it'd be more accurate to say that in their neat essay form they are incorrect/incomplete, but that there's a kernel of truth to them. Essays like this want to package an idea into a nice, easy to understand thing that has some punch to it. Reality is more complex.
lukas099 7mo ago
The Clueless is the person who actually believes his work makes a difference and wants to do a good job. Not necessarily a terrible way to live, although it should be acknowledged that the Loser frees up time and energy to devote to other things, notably family.
- the_af 7mo ago
  (According to the theory) it is a terrible way to live, because everything the Clueless believes is false. The Clueless believe their work makes a difference, but it doesn't. They believe it matters they do a good job, but it doesn't truly matter except for the advancement and power plays of the Sociopaths. They believe themselves "company men", and are loyal to a company that despises them and sees them as completely expendable. The Losers understand this, and therefore devote their energy to other things outside work, where they find meaning in life. (Again, I understand this is what the theory states and doesn't necessarily reflect reality. But I do think there's a kernel of truth to it.)
  - Singletoned 7mo ago
    You are assuming that there's something bad about everything you believe being false. There's a fair amount of evidence that it's a good thing. EG religious people being happier and living longer