The Gervais Principle

[Icarus]

Gents,

Since almost all of us have to work for a living, and given that many of us work in a corporate environment, it is clear that knowing how to play office politics is a survival skill as important as knowing how to game women.

If reading Roissy, Roosh, and Esther Vilar changed my perspective on women quite radically, Venkatesh Rao's The Gervais Principle series of blog posts changed my perspective on corporate habitats, and it allowed me to finally make sense of seemingly non-sensical situations that I experienced as a young, naive engineer working for tech startups. Here's the series:

1. The Office According to The Office
   
2. Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk
   
3. The Curse of Development
   
4. Wonderful Human Beings
   
5. Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

The 6th part is still being prepared. This principle is named after Ricky Gervais, the creator of The Office. It is also based on Hugh MacLeod’s Company Hierarchy:

The interested reader should be able to adapt these ideas to gaming women.

 

[cardguy]

Looks interesting!

Will post back when I get a chance to read through it all.

 

[Hades]

You can elaborate for a long time on anything about engineering. Gonna graduate soon and look for a job in that field and I'm all ears.

 

[WestIndianArchie]

This is a net classic. Up there with the Ladder Theory.

Ribbon Farm is hard as hell to read nowadays. Rao introduces so many new ideas that you have to then use to break down ever newer ideas. Illegibility comes to mind.

WIA

 

[j r]

Good posting, Icarus.

I read this a couple of years ago and absolutely devoured it.

 

[Icarus]

Ribbon Farm is hard as hell to read nowadays. Rao introduces so many new ideas that you have to then use to break down ever newer ideas.

Indeed. Rao is now a 7/10 on the Moldbug Scale.

 

[WestIndianArchie]

Ribbon Farm is hard as hell to read nowadays. Rao introduces so many new ideas that you have to then use to break down ever newer ideas.

Indeed. Rao is now a 7/10 on the Moldbug Scale.

Did you read his book?

I think it was in chapter 4 where he wanted you to do some exercises.

Sold it on amazon.

WIA

 

[SpiderKing]

Great series, on part 4 now.

Remember, you are unique, just like everybody else. And everybody is uniquely above average. This is why, paradoxically, collectivist philosophies that value equality must necessarily value diversity. Nobody wants to equally average. Everybody must be given a chance to be equally above average.

 

[cibo]

I lived this in a big company. It's pretty true I believe.

 

[Icarus]

Venkat has just posted the 6th and last installment of the Gervais Principle series:

• Children of an absent god

 

[Mage]

Do I understand this right that:

Sociopaths = alpha males
Clueless = women
Losers = betas

 

[Icarus]

Do I understand this right that:

Sociopaths = alpha males
Clueless = women
Losers = betas

The principle is supposed to be applied to organizations, not to the sexual markets. My understanding is as follows:

Sociopaths: understand how the world works, want to dominate instead of being dominated, and play to win, despite the slim odds. "Up or out!" They either make it big or self-destruct in the process. Risk-maximizers who embrace risk with the hope that it will get them the elevator to the top, understanding that such risk-seeking may get them broke and unemployable, too. Know when it is worth working hard and when slacking off pays off. Will not sacrifice their careers in the short-term for the benefit of the company. Do not accept being paid in promises.

Clueless: do not understand how the world works, distort reality, accept being paid in promises, believe they will never get old and will never need to retire. Believe that hard work alone will get them to the top. Have no idea what projects are worth working hard on, and which aren't. Sacrifice their careers in the short-term for the benefit of the company, foolishly believing that the company will reward them later on. These are the idiots who play the "startup roulette" in the Silly Con Valley. Need heroes to worship, for religious reasons.

Losers: understand how the world works, realize they have very little chances of making it big and becoming independent, and decide not to even try. They are risk-minimizers, and will trade compensation for stability and job security. Not particularly loyal to the company, will leave work at 17:01. Know when it's worth working hard and when it's not. Do not want to rise to the Clueless middle manager level, as they know that the instability they will get will not be compensated by the 20%-50% salary increase. Do not sacrifice for the company. Will leave as soon as the company stop giving them stability and job security. Distort rewards, and accept being paid in "good feelings", but not in promises. Want to sell 8 hours of their time each working day to afford doing what they like in their free time. Hope to die before they run out of savings.

 

[cardguy]

I work for the gubmint.

And where I work - all promotions take place via an application form and then an interview.

Most people get weeded out at the application form stage - and the applications are 'anonymised' so the people judging them don't know who they are from.

And when it comes to the interview - you are interviewed by somebody who you have probably never worked with before. And an independent interviewer from a different office.

I mention all this - because I am not sure how common these types of 'strict, open and fair' systems for handing out promotions are?

And if they are common - I wonder if there is any point learning the strategies and thinking involving in such guides like 'The Gervais Principle' - if you are working in a place where no matter how much of a 'sociopath' you are, it won't affect your chances of getting ahead in the organisation.

Just wondering if others are in similar situations?

 

[Mage]

Do I understand this right that:

Sociopaths = alpha males
Clueless = women
Losers = betas

The principle is supposed to be applied to organizations, not to the sexual markets. My understanding is as follows:

Yes I read further and see that this is not exact overlap, but some overlap is there.
Alpha is still correlated with sociopaty. Clueless is like a hard working beta hoping to get rewarded for being nice and loyal. Loser is like an omega having a know-how speciality but a low social rank. Most women would be losers - unambitious, forming groups, affirming their special snowflake status, having no deep loyalty or passions.

 

[Vaun]

Do I understand this right that:

Sociopaths = alpha males
Clueless = women
Losers = betas

The principle is supposed to be applied to organizations, not to the sexual markets. My understanding is as follows:

Sociopaths: understand how the world works, want to dominate instead of being dominated, and play to win, despite the slim odds. "Up or out!" They either make it big or self-destruct in the process. Risk-maximizers who embrace risk with the hope that it will get them the elevator to the top, understanding that such risk-seeking may get them broke and unemployable, too. Know when it is worth working hard and when slacking off pays off. Will not sacrifice their careers in the short-term for the benefit of the company. Do not accept being paid in promises.

Clueless: do not understand how the world works, distort reality, accept being paid in promises, believe they will never get old and will never need to retire. Believe that hard work alone will get them to the top. Have no idea what projects are worth working hard on, and which aren't. Sacrifice their careers in the short-term for the benefit of the company, foolishly believing that the company will reward them later on. These are the idiots who play the "startup roulette" in the Silly Con Valley. Need heroes to worship, for religious reasons.

Losers: understand how the world works, realize they have very little chances of making it big and becoming independent, and decide not to even try. They are risk-minimizers, and will trade compensation for stability and job security. Not particularly loyal to the company, will leave work at 17:01. Know when it's worth working hard and when it's not. Do not want to rise to the Clueless middle manager level, as they know that the instability they will get will not be compensated by the 20%-50% salary increase. Do not sacrifice for the company. Will leave as soon as the company stop giving them stability and job security. Distort rewards, and accept being paid in "good feelings", but not in promises. Want to sell 8 hours of their time each working day to afford doing what they like in their free time. Hope to die before they run out of savings.

thats a pretty good summary, better than whats in the book. Bought it last night after seeing these threads, about half way done. Bought his other books too. Surprisingly reads very fast.

 

[Icarus]

I work for the gubmint. (...) And if they are common - I wonder if there is any point learning the strategies and thinking involving in such guides like 'The Gervais Principle' - if you are working in a place where no matter how much of a 'sociopath' you are, it won't affect your chances of getting ahead in the organisation.

Sociopaths get ahead in government, too.

You should watch Sir Humphrey in action and learn from him, since he's the epitome of sociopath:

 

[cardguy]

I love 'Yes, Minister'!

And it has the best opening credits of any TV show ever. I love the drawings and music...

 

[Icarus]

Alpha is still correlated with sociopaty. Clueless is like a hard working beta hoping to get rewarded for being nice and loyal. Loser is like an omega having a know-how speciality but a low social rank. Most women would be losers - unambitious, forming groups, affirming their special snowflake status, having no deep loyalty or passions.

Exactly!!! MGTOW are all Losers, for instance. Both Sociopaths (alphas) and Losers (omegas) pity and despise the Clueless (betas). Back in 2012 I wrote a post on that, in another thread, and I now take the liberty of posting it on this thread:

Remember Hugh MacLeod's company hierarchy?

The same happens on CS. Here's the CouchSurfing Hierarchy:

• we RVF'ers are the sociopaths: we are the ones who understand how the world works, and play to win.

• the self-righteous prigs calling us horrible names on CS forums are the clueless: they are the ones who do not understand how the world works and think that formal and actual meaning are the same thing. Because people say "CS is not a dating site", they read that as a moral commandment, and not as shibboleth whose purpose is to sort the sociopaths from the clueless. They cling to their "morality" because they have nothing else.

• the MGTOW are the losers: they are the ones who understand how the world works (like the sociopaths), evaluate their chances of winning, realize that they can't win, and decide not to play. Theirs is a perfectly rational decision, and should not be ridiculed.

A sociopath can burn out and become a loser. A loser can transform himself into a sociopath if he has some good genetics and fierce willpower. The clueless remain clueless, they go through life half-asleep.

 

[cardguy]

lol - I'm pretty MGTOW myself.

Not because I am a loser - but because I am busy doing other shit.

 

[kosko]

I'm a company socio-path but on the bottom end. I've always been able to manipulate every job to serve me best. I'm always willing to work hard but get annoyed when I can't get compensated for that work or if others are dregs around me.

I hate the cooperate model. As I can't manipulate it and even they don't seem to follow their polices they try to rape their slaves with. I work for a massive corporation right now and I have to keep myself from punching holes in the walls. Dosnt help either I fuked one of my bosses and she constantly plays this good cop/ bad cop shit with me. She's the epitome of the clueless manager, but she has the credentials and greased the right hands (or cocks) to get her job. I'm still fresh eyed to the corps and they would be willing to throw me in the grinder at any moments notice.