[jessedhillon]

I've been re-reading the Gervais Principle series[0] recently, so I can't help but to construe both the original essay[1] and this response in terms of Sociopath, Clueless and Loser dynamics.

The original essay could also be called "A Loser's Guide To Careers" -- it's a realistic assessment of the options and opportunities offered to most engineers. It recognizes that most readers will be, in the grand scheme of things, on the short end of the stick and will have relatively little to bargain with. Accordingly, it dispenses cold, rational advice for how to best bargain with that limited leverage.

Both the Sociopath and the Loser are realists, it's only that the Loser has little meaningful leverage; he accepts this and so makes the best time-money bargain he can negotiate.

The Clueless, however, is clueless -- he would like to believe he is making a difference by keeping his head down, working hard and following the rules; instead, he is setup to be a mediocre middle manager at best, and a scapegoat at worst. And this essay could best be called "A Clueless Defense." That is not meant to slight any of Jacques technical achievements or prowess. Instead, I apply the term "clueless" here to mean that Jacques is being hopelessly naive. This essay is essentially a celebration of Jacques refusal to accept the situation in which he and other engineers find themselves: a world where those who hold the largest stakes (in any venture we choose to participate in) generally have no clue what value we provide and are incented to reduce our stakes.

(Yes, there are exceptions, even successful ones, and I think I work at one of those. But I don't blindly believe it, and I wouldn't bet my life or my family's future on it.)

I could write a lot more about my feelings on "I am a programmer,": I don't like it. I've already said that I find it naive and I don't want to cause unnecessary offense. Still, I commend Jacques for writing it at all and there's no reason to alienate him in disagreement, because it's an honest expression of his feelings. But I do want to say that, as a worldview, the idea of it being useful for understanding the trajectory of your career... well, I'm reminded of a line from the Futurama episode "Love and Rocket":

"Oh I would dearly love to believe that were true. So I do."

(And also -- the original essay has nothing to do with job titles.)

[0] http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o... [1] http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...

[javert]

Responding to "The Gervais Principle":

Categorizing everyone who works in the modern economy as either a "sociopath," "clueless," or a "loser" is utterly ridiculous and deeply offensive.

Moreover, "The Office" is not a basis for drawing general conclusions about the working world.

This very rarely happens, but I'm not willing to finish reading an article that spouts this kind of hogwash.

[jessedhillon]

I understand your initial reaction, but you obviously haven't read enough of this massive five-part essay to have an informed opinion. It elaborates a theory of power politics which, in my experience, has immense explanatory power.

The terms "sociopath," "clueless," or "loser" are selected for their efficiency, and are not value judgments.

[crazygringo]

Have you read it? It would clearly appear you have not. And if not, you shouldn't be judging it, if you don't even understand (or address) the motivations behind those choices.

[crazygringo]

I'm not really convinced that this is a "Clueless Defense". That would be glorifying the job, like calling it software engineering. To the contrary, this essay seems to be quite self-aware of the "Loser" status, and saying -- hey guys, let's recognize what we are, and not delude ourselves into thinking we're something more.

Not saying I necessarily agree with this, but merely commenting on the interesting parellels. (I'm almost finished with the Gervais Principle series now, and it's fascinating.)