Comments on: The Gervais Principle, Or The Office According to “The Office” http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ experiments in refactored perception Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:22:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: ElCoronel http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-4092 ElCoronel Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:01:41 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-4092 I would say Oscar definitely exists solely to be 'ironically-tokenized' as do most of the characters that sit in that back corner. They have had some development over the run of the show but I suspect mostly to provide new fodder to tell the stories of Michael and Jim. I would say Oscar definitely exists solely to be ‘ironically-tokenized’ as do most of the characters that sit in that back corner. They have had some development over the run of the show but I suspect mostly to provide new fodder to tell the stories of Michael and Jim.

]]> By: ElCoronel http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-4091 ElCoronel Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:22:30 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-4091 Impatiently waiting for more... I've shared this blog with a ton of my non-clueless friends and we must have more of this The Office analysis soon! Impatiently waiting for more… I’ve shared this blog with a ton of my non-clueless friends and we must have more of this The Office analysis soon!

]]> By: Singletoned » Blog Archive » Sociopaths, Clueless and Losers http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-4005 Singletoned » Blog Archive » Sociopaths, Clueless and Losers Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:45:44 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-4005 [...] To get any value from this post you really have to go and read the wonderful article by Venkatesh Rao The Gervais Principle, Or The Office According to “The Office”. [...] [...] To get any value from this post you really have to go and read the wonderful article by Venkatesh Rao The Gervais Principle, Or The Office According to “The Office”. [...]

]]> By: simplistic thoughts http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3989 simplistic thoughts Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:34:51 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3989 I love the diagram. I would guess that each level sees the others as those titles. I love the diagram. I would guess that each level sees the others as those titles.

]]> By: tV http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3977 tV Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:03:08 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3977 Nice. Connected & commented here _ http://fugitive.quadrantcrossing.org/?p=305 Nice. Connected & commented here _

http://fugitive.quadrantcrossing.org/?p=305

]]> By: Morgan http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3903 Morgan Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:16:16 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3903 Great stuff!! Great stuff!!

]]> By: Daff http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3809 Daff Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:25:36 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3809 More, please. More, please.

]]> By: Brian http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3741 Brian Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:17:45 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3741 The male/female = sociopath/clueless parallel is bogus. Female powertalk is full of "we are all working together" while male powertalk is full of "I lead/you follow" or "you lead/I follow." Both assume a style of organization, and reinforce that style. The male/female = sociopath/clueless parallel is bogus. Female powertalk is full of “we are all working together” while male powertalk is full of “I lead/you follow” or “you lead/I follow.” Both assume a style of organization, and reinforce that style.

]]> By: Ian Luke Kane http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3693 Ian Luke Kane Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:41:02 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3693 Absolutely fantastic thinking. I'd like to hear your further thoughts on Toby, especially. Absolutely fantastic thinking. I’d like to hear your further thoughts on Toby, especially.

]]> By: Anthony http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3682 Anthony Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:11:04 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3682 Hi, Venkat. I'm just half-way through reading this fascinating, insightful, alarming blogpost. (Work won't ever be the same again.) I just wanted to point out that it should be "Comparing Michael *WITH* his exiting sociopath peer" (rather than "Comparing Michael *to* his..." -- which means almost the exact opposite). Yeah, I'm a coasting Loser pedant. So fire me. Hi, Venkat. I’m just half-way through reading this fascinating, insightful, alarming blogpost. (Work won’t ever be the same again.)

I just wanted to point out that it should be “Comparing Michael *WITH* his exiting sociopath peer” (rather than “Comparing Michael *to* his…” — which means almost the exact opposite).

Yeah, I’m a coasting Loser pedant. So fire me.

]]> By: Sumana Harihareswara http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3625 Sumana Harihareswara Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:53:33 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3625 Thought-provoking stuff, as you're already aware. My understanding is that David Simon specifically developed "The Wire" as an argument against loyalty to institutions: <a href="http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/tv/int/2002/06/29/simon/index.html" rel="nofollow">"["The Wire" is] sort of a visual novel. We knew exactly what we wanted to say about the bureaucratic aspects of the drug war.</a> It is about what happens in this land of ours when product ceases to matter, when the institutions themselves become predominant over their purpose. Pick up the paper: You take a job, you go down to Houston, you move your family there, you find out they gutted the company and stole your pension. It's like whatever you believe in, whatever you commit to that's larger than you or your family, will somehow find a way to fuck you." Loyalty to an organization? <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/08/10.html" rel="nofollow">Identifying with an organization?</a> For a fairly smart hard worker, who actually believes in the stated goals of the organization, it's fairly seductive, especially if they conflates their specific subcommunity with the institution as a whole. They're dismayed when they see "politics," which is when someone else puts personal status ahead of the organization's mission, even sabotaging useful work to gain or keep relative status. Have you read Peter Watts's work, such as <em>Blindsight</em>? You might enjoy his <a href="http://www.rifters.com/blindsight/vampires.htm" rel="nofollow">slideshow on sociopathy in vampires</a>. Thought-provoking stuff, as you’re already aware.

My understanding is that David Simon specifically developed “The Wire” as an argument against loyalty to institutions:

“["The Wire" is] sort of a visual novel. We knew exactly what we wanted to say about the bureaucratic aspects of the drug war. It is about what happens in this land of ours when product ceases to matter, when the institutions themselves become predominant over their purpose. Pick up the paper: You take a job, you go down to Houston, you move your family there, you find out they gutted the company and stole your pension. It’s like whatever you believe in, whatever you commit to that’s larger than you or your family, will somehow find a way to fuck you.”

Loyalty to an organization? Identifying with an organization? For a fairly smart hard worker, who actually believes in the stated goals of the organization, it’s fairly seductive, especially if they conflates their specific subcommunity with the institution as a whole. They’re dismayed when they see “politics,” which is when someone else puts personal status ahead of the organization’s mission, even sabotaging useful work to gain or keep relative status.

Have you read Peter Watts’s work, such as Blindsight? You might enjoy his slideshow on sociopathy in vampires.

]]> By: bob http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3597 bob Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:48:00 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3597 I've never seen the office, but I enjoyed your analysis of organizational communication. I’ve never seen the office, but I enjoyed your analysis of organizational communication.

]]> By: Curtis http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3592 Curtis Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:25:09 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3592 A great read! Loved the insight. Please keep it going. It's interesting to read through the comments and pick out who falls into which category. Seems to me that S & L's generally, readily identify themselves while the C's aren't able to do so as easily. A great read! Loved the insight. Please keep it going.
It’s interesting to read through the comments and pick out who falls into which category.
Seems to me that S & L’s generally, readily identify themselves while the C’s aren’t able to do so as easily.

]]> By: Chad http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3591 Chad Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:51:45 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3591 Loved it. Finally an explanation for my disjointed CV (short stints selling enterprise software for vc-backed start ups in between my own eBiz start ups) Loved it. Finally an explanation for my disjointed CV (short stints selling enterprise software for vc-backed start ups in between my own eBiz start ups)

]]> By: James T Kirk http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3584 James T Kirk Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:50:39 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3584 I think you misunderstood Dan. You seem to assume that everybody hates their job and needs to delude themselves into believing otherwise - that's false. I think you misunderstood Dan. You seem to assume that everybody hates their job and needs to delude themselves into believing otherwise – that’s false.

]]> By: B http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3582 B Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:24:53 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3582 Win. Win.

]]> By: Drew @ Cook Like Your Grandmother http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3575 Drew @ Cook Like Your Grandmother Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:02:56 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3575 This is brilliant. For the people trying to figure out which track they're on, there's a rule of thumb you can borrow from poker: At any high-stakes game there's sure to be at least one sucker. If don't know who it is, it's you. This is brilliant. For the people trying to figure out which track they’re on, there’s a rule of thumb you can borrow from poker: At any high-stakes game there’s sure to be at least one sucker. If don’t know who it is, it’s you.

]]> By: Samat Jain (tamasrepus) 's status on Wednesday, 18-Nov-09 23:38:41 UTC - Identi.ca http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3574 Samat Jain (tamasrepus) 's status on Wednesday, 18-Nov-09 23:38:41 UTC - Identi.ca Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:39:22 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3574 [...] http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ a few seconds ago from Choqok [...] [...] http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ a few seconds ago from Choqok [...]

]]> By: Venkat http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3570 Venkat Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:23:09 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3570 I am not concerned about my language since it suits the level at which I intended to present the ideas, but you are partly right about the accuracy here. Mea culpa. I think we agree that my characterization of Meredith is accurate, modulo language. You are right though, that Oscar's character (unlike say, Jack on Will and Grace) is not driven by his being gay. While the few plots with an active role for him DO center on his being the token gay character, his character does not revolve around his being gay. The problem is that without that, his character doesn't have any depth on the show at all, except for a mild fastidiousness with budgets. So perhaps I can be forgiven for not reading anything more than "gay" in his character because the writers didn't write any more into it. Or maybe he is supposed to be ironically-tokenized, so Michael can say things like "your gayness does not define you, your Mexican-ness does." Food for thought though. Venkat I am not concerned about my language since it suits the level at which I intended to present the ideas, but you are partly right about the accuracy here. Mea culpa.

I think we agree that my characterization of Meredith is accurate, modulo language. You are right though, that Oscar’s character (unlike say, Jack on Will and Grace) is not driven by his being gay. While the few plots with an active role for him DO center on his being the token gay character, his character does not revolve around his being gay.

The problem is that without that, his character doesn’t have any depth on the show at all, except for a mild fastidiousness with budgets. So perhaps I can be forgiven for not reading anything more than “gay” in his character because the writers didn’t write any more into it.

Or maybe he is supposed to be ironically-tokenized, so Michael can say things like “your gayness does not define you, your Mexican-ness does.”

Food for thought though.

Venkat

]]> By: Dan G http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/#comment-3569 Dan G Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:41:55 +0000 http://www.ribbonfarm.com/?p=1289#comment-3569 Vivek, my central thesis is different: Sometimes you can be lucky enough to find yourself in a career where being a believer does not mean being clueless but clued-in, and loserdom comes on the tails of incompetence rather than as a result of calculation. It is true that there is always a vulnerability to player/sociopath infiltration, and it is perhaps as a result of a proliferation of the player/sociopath type that some believers remain stuck in a lost reality (the clueless) and some other believers understand and accept what is going on and withdraw into self-imposed loserdom. The typology you describe is valid in a /corrupt/ organisation and you seem to believe quite strongly that an organisation must be corrupt somehow by definition. That is not the case. I experienced both kinds in my career so no need to try to argue that is not possible. It is. I guess you are stuck in a rather corrupt organisation now (huge corporations tend to be so, indeed) hence the inability to contemplate anything different. Vivek, my central thesis is different: Sometimes you can be lucky enough to find yourself in a career where being a believer does not mean being clueless but clued-in, and loserdom comes on the tails of incompetence rather than as a result of calculation. It is true that there is always a vulnerability to player/sociopath infiltration, and it is perhaps as a result of a proliferation of the player/sociopath type that some believers remain stuck in a lost reality (the clueless) and some other believers understand and accept what is going on and withdraw into self-imposed loserdom.

The typology you describe is valid in a /corrupt/ organisation and you seem to believe quite strongly that an organisation must be corrupt somehow by definition. That is not the case. I experienced both kinds in my career so no need to try to argue that is not possible. It is. I guess you are stuck in a rather corrupt organisation now (huge corporations tend to be so, indeed) hence the inability to contemplate anything different.

]]>