[rgifford]

Sociopaths, the clueless and losers. This great essay analyzing The Office argues that in a modern business context you're one of the three. [1]

Those "functional elites" you mentioned? Usually they're working 20-50% more for 0-25% percent more pay. They're called the clueless because they've been conned into working more for less, usually under some clever guise like company being family or company values or the promise of a promotion that's always a cycle or two away. The essay then goes on to argue that losers are really just the clueless once they "get it." Losers understand the treadmill and lean into the tedium always aiming to save their time by playing dumb as needed. Sociopaths break out of the cycle by operating only with concern for power and switching up how they talk to folks based on whether they're clueless, losers or fellow sociopaths.

Sociopaths speak in powertalk -- an exchange of information on clear terms. It's usually veiled because the clueless and losers listen in and it makes them feel uncomfortable. If it weren't veiled it would probably sound like lawyer-jargon with lots of plausible deniability, conditions, arguing and explicit shared definitions.

Losers and clueless speak in their own languages based on who they're talking with. It's basically just lots of trying to feel okay... except for when it comes to losers speaking with sociopaths. There the only communication is straight talk, which is basically just direct requests of a master-slave dynamic (i.e. "do this"). The essay is well worth the read!

1. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-...

[vasco]

Not every place in life is a place of struggle and fight. Some people actually enjoy their work. This just sounds like "class struggle" and "proletariat and bourgeoisie" under different names. Also thinking of your colleagues and people as "elites", "losers" and the "clueless" gives me some understanding to the state of mind of who writes this.

To keep it lighter, in the companies I've worked in the architypes of people were more like:

- The "anger problem that shouts every once in a while" guy

- The "chronic nervous person that is paralyzed by impostor syndrome"

- The "i find more problems than solutions" guy

- The "i'm here to socialize, make friends, maybe get married"

- The "i gave up 10 years ago and just want my paycheck"

- The "i'm a kid learning everything I can and am just excited to be here"

- The "i'm working on my true passion outside of work while hanging out here with you guys" etc etc

People have their own lives, not everything is just a power play of losers and elites.

I'll be honest, even if the world was exactly as you described, which it isn't, I'd choose to not see it that way so that my life wouldn't be such a bleak existance. Rather be a naive happy fool than enlightned and depressed.

[j-bos]

The article uses struggly words like sociopaths and losers, but defines them very differently from common use, often the 'losers' have the most fulfilling and rounded lives, i.e. true winners

- The "chronic nervous person that is paralyzed by impostor syndrome" - clueless

- The "i find more problems than solutions" guy - clueless

- The "i'm here to socialize, make friends, maybe get married" - loser

- The "i gave up 10 years ago and just want my paycheck" - loser

- The "i'm working on my true passion outside of work while hanging out here with you guys" etc etc - loser

It's a rough model of org interactions with poorly named categories.

[KirillPanov]

> Sociopaths break out of the cycle by operating only with concern for power

There are other ways to break out of the cycle. Keep looking.

[aleph_minus_one]

> There are other ways to break out of the cycle. Keep looking.

What are these ways (besides founding a startup or something similar)?