[IsaacL]

It's funny, I was rereading this article and Scott Alexander's review just now, before I saw that it had been reposted on HN.

Scott makes some good points but I think he simply lacks experience in the kind of big corporations Venkat describes. I think the Gervais Principle can be observed most readily in large, old-economy firms operating in zero-sum industries. It's probably more predominant on the east coast than the west coast, and even more predominant outside of the US. That's not to say that small, new-economy, west-coast, non-zero-sum companies won't demonstrate the same patterns, but they will almost certainly appear more weakly, in different forms. (And, of course, firms in the middle will show the same patterns in middling amounts.)

I first read these articles back in university, thought they were amazing mind-blowing red-pill insights, then promptly discovered on entering the working world that I had too little experience to utilise this kind of thinking.

A few years later I decided that a more principled, honest stance makes sense: be productive, set goals, figure out what you're doing before your do it, decide what you want and then go after it, don't take on work that you can't handle, etc. If you do that, you should be able to avoid politics (or so I thought). This strategy works very well... up to a point. However, after a few more years, and lots of reflection, I've realised that the dynamics Rao describes are visible in pretty much any group of people over a certain size. You just have to observe closely over a long period of time.

Even the most political workplace will look normal 90% of the time... the political interactions are subtle, ambiguous, and almost always inseparable from ongoing relationships or interpersonal dramas. Heck, 95% or more of "politicking" consists of interpersonal skills, "emotional awareness" and the ability to communicate. The Machiavellianism only really comes into play amongst people who've shown that they can do their jobs, have a decent circle of friends (or "friends") in the organisation, and have some idea of what they'd do with organisational power. These are the "table stakes" that Venkat refers to; before you obtain these, attempting to play the political game is pointless.

I concluded that up until the age of about 27-28, it's best to focus on building up your core skillset so that you can gain "table stakes". As a general rule, people under 25 can't beat people over 35 in political games, and shouldn't even try. (For people in-between, it's complicated.) However, over the age of about 28-30, understanding the political games suddenly becomes much, much more important. Even if you only want to use your powers for noble ends. (Example: supporting a junior employee who has unintentionally earned the disapproval of the boss.) With the context of a few years worth of work experience, Venkat's article makes a lot more sense. (Especially after sincerely attempting to walk the path of honesty, integrity and productivity, and observing its strengths and weaknesses.)

It's possible that Scott and his friends either work in very nice companies, or that that don't notice these dynamics going on around them. I have a simpler hypothesis: they're Losers (in Rao's sense) -- they might be well-paid losers, highly-educated losers, socially and financially successful losers, charming and sociable losers, but Losers nevertheless. When Rao calls someone a Loser, all he means is that they've given up on maximizing their potential wealth and power in exchange for a steady income (which may still be very high) and belonging to a particular crowd. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and for 90% of people, it's a reasonable trade.

There's no special pot of gold or magic crown you win by becoming a "sociopath". It simply means that you've decided to step outside of the box defined by the local social structure and to walk your own path. Whether that path is good or evil, logical or insane, spiritual or depraved, is from then on entirely up to you.

That said: based on what I've read about politicking in rationalist circles, and in EA circles, and at Google promotional reviews, and at other FAANGs, and at large silicon valley startups, and at small silicon valley startups, (and presumably amongst small indie bloggers who get targeted by the New York Times) I simply conclude that this kind of behaviour occurs all around Scott and that he simply isn't aware of it.

[pfisherman]

I guess? There really is no escape from politics. It’s even worse in the relatively low stakes environments of academia and non profits.

Also, I think that everybody who wants to work at a big corporation should do an enterprise sales job at point in their career. It gives real insight into how decisions to pursue large and expensive initiatives are made in these types of organizations.

[titanomachy]

“It’s possible that Scott and his friends… are Losers”

I don’t know if the term is even applicable to people who don’t work in large organizations. Scott’s a psychiatrist. A lot of doctors work in small partnerships where these dynamics might not play out.

[nostrademons]

There's a level where these dynamics operate throughout the economy, outside of the organization. Venkatesh Rao wrote another classic essay [1] where he describes a dynamic where "the 1% and the 90% collaborat[e] to prey on the 9% in the middle — the Jeffersonian middle class."

Scott in this model is a Clueless - he is part of the 9% naive enough (and yet proficient enough in their trade) to believe that they can survive on their own merits and exist in an objective reality of pure reason, outside of social reality and its fickle emotional currents. And sure enough, it ended in a member of the cultural 1% (a journalist) collaborating with the 90% (Internet mobs) to prey on the 9% (a psychologist-blogger), dox him for pageviews, and force him from his job and his blog.

You'll also notice this dynamic in a lot of populist movements, eg. Trump (1%) collaborates with his MAGA fans (90%) to own the urban libs (9%).

[1] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/

[IsaacL]

I'd say people who work as solo entrepreneurs or independent contractors are usually either "sociopaths" (of a particular kind) or some kind of sociopath/loser mixture, depending on how mercenary and ambitious they are.

(In this case, as in many others, I don't really like Rao's "sociopath" label, as it has the wrong connotations. "Politician" or "machiavellian" may be better.)

The average, say, independent contractor software dev, the "mercenary" type, is a loser/sociopath hybrid. Unlike typical losers, they forgo the security of a steady paycheck and employee benefits in exchange for a (often significant) income boost and personal freedom. They forgo the slightly paternalistic employer/employee relationship and instead engage with their employer on purely capitalistic terms. On the other hand, they typically avoid internal battles wherever they work and simply follow the bidding of whoever signs the cheques.

Solo consultants who actively get involved in helping management make decisions act more like "sociopaths" out of necessity ("politician" may be a much better word for this case). Indeed there's a whole category of solo consultants/executive coaches who basically exist to act as "consigliere" for senior executives who need political mentoring (dressed up as leadership training, career coaching or whatever).

I don't know much about how Scott's industry functions. One guess: partnerships between two or more independent peers typically consist of approximately-equal "sociopaths". If they're "good" sociopaths, these can be very productive business relationships. All parties know what they're getting into, and everyone respects each other as a peer. Healthy startup co-founder relationships should be similar. (Rao's later essay, "Entrepreneurs are the New Labor", suggests that the tech startup scene was becoming filled with more "clueless" young founders as technology hype and startup boosterism attracted more naive youngsters.)

Anyway, based on many of Scott's posts, it sounds as though much of his job does involve political skills: advocating for his patients' needs against some medical bureaucracy, talking patients out of doing stupid things, and so on. All of these are examples of "good politicking" (and might illustrate why the "sociopath" label is deficient).

(I'm turning into a sightly-less-cranky michaelochurch, heh. I guess every forum evolutionary niche needs to be filled.)