[roenxi]

I don't want to be judgmental, and say this with the mildest of intentions (grandparent is just trying to make a contribution, and it would be good advice for some people), but as you point out - "lose your inhibitions" is worse advice than "be a traitorous arse". To someone who doesn't know how to do something, 'alter your mental state and hope that works' is useless advice because holding a drink doesn't magically teach you anything. In addition, the realistic worst case scenario of "be an arse" executed badly is it doesn't work out for you and you stop. The realistic worst case of purposefully upping your alcohol intake is physical danger and lawsuits if you are purposefully exploring new levels of inebriation.

Plus the original question is office politics. Socialising is a small component of office politics if you don't want to socialise.

[deathanatos]

That's an interesting way to look at it, and you're not wrong. The way I was considering it when I wrote the post was more along a consideration of the Golden Rule; that is, "drinking" is really only a danger to yourself (at least, to some degree; it is possible, I suppose, that you make decisions while under the influence that do effect others), whereas the other comment I was referring to is pretty encouraging active harm to other individuals. (Although, I suppose if you expect that that's the playing field, one could argue that it isn't a violation of the Golden Rule? That is, if it is "par for the course"? Nonetheless, it seems like a good way to ensure limited collective success, which is perhaps my real objection to it.)