jhonny9546
Master Don Juan
Hi guys! This is gonna be a bit lenghty
If you've ever worked in the corporate world, you've experienced this: The Gervais Principle
In short, it is a theory of corporate organization that despite its humorous tone, it's applicable to real world scenarios.
According to the Gervais Principle, organizations naturally sort people into three groups, Losers, Clueless, and Sociopaths, and companies survive because of the interaction among these groups.
1) The Sociopaths (leaders) charateristics are that they operate with cold, utilitarian logic, they see the company spuriously as a tool for personal gain and they rise to executive positions by understanding and manipulating the system.
2) The Clueless (middle management) are given operational authority, and they sincerely and naïvely believe in the company's mission and culture, but they serve as a buffer between top leadership and workers to enforce orders without questioning the broader strategy.
3) The Losers (the actual workers) are not "losers" in the everyday sense, but they work out of financial necessity, not ideological commitment. They try to maximize the ratio of pay to effort to survive, or the "hourly pay rate," and those are the people who actually perform the work that keeps the company running.
So the System Works with Sociopaths gaining power by manipulating information and distributing rewards; the clueless maintain organizational stability and hierarchy while the Losers do the real work.
Now, do you want to know how this translates into human relationships?
Just observe. Observe and understand how these people, depending on their traits, will end up in life.
I'm speaking from a man's perspective:
Sociopaths are those who gain power by manipulating people, and they often end up in unstable relationships because their qualities naturally lead them to create insecurity, and therefore not the perfect breeding ground for a long-term relationship. But they are very attractive, and will be seen as such by (insecure) women.
Now, I could say that losers and clueless people are very similar because they both believe in the "blue pill" of corporate life. They're manipulated from above, but to them, everything seems "real."
In fact, they put their true commitment, respect, and heart into their work. You can see this among small artisans, employees, etc.
One thing that distinguishes them from sociopaths is that they have no malice or malevolence, which is why they're what we might call those who lose themselves in oneitis.
Now we need to make some distinctions: there's another category that the theory doesn't take into account. Namely, those who have awakened: they know their strengths and are aware of the system and the manipulations at work. Those who are aware of the red pill. These people can choose. They're the best category. They can decide their role, but they usually won't continue to be clueless or losers for others unless the company is their own, and then they'll give it their all, be confident leaders, and help shape themselves into mature individuals.
I have many examples of this type, including some restaurant managers in my town (they all started as workers and worked their way up to managers).
This discussion can help you understand how we've reached a point in life where we have to decide whether to continue creating a lot of unproductive (insecure) land or invest in a few productive (safe) land, simply by adjusting our attitude to life.
Tomorrow I could open my own company in my specific field of expertise and start being a sociopath, becoming successful, without doing anything (professionally speaking).
I would like to understand how many of you were able to see these similarities between sociopathic people and how they managed their lives, as men of high status, but perpetually insecure and immature, while those who had a much lower status than them were instead excellent examples of life.
If you've ever worked in the corporate world, you've experienced this: The Gervais Principle
In short, it is a theory of corporate organization that despite its humorous tone, it's applicable to real world scenarios.
According to the Gervais Principle, organizations naturally sort people into three groups, Losers, Clueless, and Sociopaths, and companies survive because of the interaction among these groups.
1) The Sociopaths (leaders) charateristics are that they operate with cold, utilitarian logic, they see the company spuriously as a tool for personal gain and they rise to executive positions by understanding and manipulating the system.
2) The Clueless (middle management) are given operational authority, and they sincerely and naïvely believe in the company's mission and culture, but they serve as a buffer between top leadership and workers to enforce orders without questioning the broader strategy.
3) The Losers (the actual workers) are not "losers" in the everyday sense, but they work out of financial necessity, not ideological commitment. They try to maximize the ratio of pay to effort to survive, or the "hourly pay rate," and those are the people who actually perform the work that keeps the company running.
So the System Works with Sociopaths gaining power by manipulating information and distributing rewards; the clueless maintain organizational stability and hierarchy while the Losers do the real work.
Now, do you want to know how this translates into human relationships?
Just observe. Observe and understand how these people, depending on their traits, will end up in life.
I'm speaking from a man's perspective:
Sociopaths are those who gain power by manipulating people, and they often end up in unstable relationships because their qualities naturally lead them to create insecurity, and therefore not the perfect breeding ground for a long-term relationship. But they are very attractive, and will be seen as such by (insecure) women.
Now, I could say that losers and clueless people are very similar because they both believe in the "blue pill" of corporate life. They're manipulated from above, but to them, everything seems "real."
In fact, they put their true commitment, respect, and heart into their work. You can see this among small artisans, employees, etc.
One thing that distinguishes them from sociopaths is that they have no malice or malevolence, which is why they're what we might call those who lose themselves in oneitis.
Now we need to make some distinctions: there's another category that the theory doesn't take into account. Namely, those who have awakened: they know their strengths and are aware of the system and the manipulations at work. Those who are aware of the red pill. These people can choose. They're the best category. They can decide their role, but they usually won't continue to be clueless or losers for others unless the company is their own, and then they'll give it their all, be confident leaders, and help shape themselves into mature individuals.
I have many examples of this type, including some restaurant managers in my town (they all started as workers and worked their way up to managers).
This discussion can help you understand how we've reached a point in life where we have to decide whether to continue creating a lot of unproductive (insecure) land or invest in a few productive (safe) land, simply by adjusting our attitude to life.
Tomorrow I could open my own company in my specific field of expertise and start being a sociopath, becoming successful, without doing anything (professionally speaking).
I would like to understand how many of you were able to see these similarities between sociopathic people and how they managed their lives, as men of high status, but perpetually insecure and immature, while those who had a much lower status than them were instead excellent examples of life.
