Post: #26

Urgh, necropost much?

Nonetheless, this is the red pill of all organisations and businesses.

Post: #27

The thing I got from this is that the two winners in this situation are the top sociopaths that make it and the losers the calculate the most compensation and stability for the least amount of work and this is why they communicate in plain fashion because they are most alike except in their optimism in being very successful.

I think I am always a "loser" for my organization because I only want to put in 100% effort into my own "sociopath" project that earns me money directly. I don't play well for someone else's team.

Post: #28

(04-14-2015 05:46 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  I think I am always a "loser" for my organization because I only want to put in 100% effort into my own "sociopath" project that earns me money directly. I don't play well for someone else's team.

It sounds like you're on the right path.

Another insight from The Gervais Principle:

Quote:The future Sociopath must be an under-performer at the bottom. Like the average Loser, he recognizes that the bargain is a really bad one. Unlike the risk-averse loser though, he does not try to make the best of a bad situation by doing enough to get by. He has no intention of just getting by. He very quickly figures out — through experiments and fast failures — that the Loser game is not worth becoming good at. He then severely under-performs in order to free up energy to concentrate on maneuvering an upward exit. He knows his under-performance is not sustainable, but he has no intention of becoming a lifetime-Loser employee anyway. He takes the calculated risk that he’ll find a way up before he is fired for incompetence.

Post: #29

Here's a good quote on law and morality:

Quote:Effective Sociopaths stick with steadfast discipline to the letter of the law, internal and external, because the stupidest way to trip yourself up is in the realm of rules where the Clueless and Losers get to be judges and jury members. What they violate is its spirit, by taking advantage of its ambiguities. Whether this makes them evil or good depends on the situation. That’s a story for another day. Good Sociopaths operate by what they personally choose as a higher morality, in reaction to what they see as the dangers, insanities and stupidities of mob morality. Evil Sociopaths are merely looking for a quick, safe buck. Losers and the Clueless, of course, avoid individual moral decisions altogether.

Post: #30

This seems extremely useful. I'll save this info for my next job.

Post: #31

On freedom:

Quote:Non-Sociopaths, as Jack Nicholson correctly argued, really cannot handle the truth. The truth of an absent god. The truth of social realities as canvases for fiction for those who choose to create them. The truth of values as crayons in the pockets of unsupervised Sociopaths. The truth of the non-centrality of humans in the larger scheme of things.

When these truths are recognized, internalized and turned into default ways of seeing the world, creative-destruction becomes merely the act of living free, not a divinely ordained imperative or a primal urge. Creative destruction is not a script, but the absence of scripts. The freedom of Sociopaths is the same as the freedom of non-human animals. Those who view it as base merely provide yet another opportunity for Sociopaths to create non-base fictions for them to inhabit.

So they imagine hidden social realities governing the lives of Sociopaths, turning them into forces of nature.

That is the ultimate imaginative act for non-Sociopaths: filling the inaccessible world of Sociopaths with convenient extrapolated social realities. Fictions that they can use to explain free Sociopath lives to themselves as being caused by some mysterious, hidden social order.

Post: #32

In the corporate world, isn't a sociopath (according to this principle) just another pawn of a higher sociopath? If he doesn't own the business, then he isn't he just a more ruthlessly efficient worker bee than the rest? Like a soldier ant who's capable of getting the others to make money for the king. He may be better off than the clueless and the losers but it appears to me that he's still part of the same system.

Post: #33

(04-15-2015 11:17 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  In the corporate world, isn't a sociopath (according to this principle) just another pawn of a higher sociopath?

The Sociopath is defined by his worldview, his freedom from petty moral constraints, his ambition and his risk-seeking. He is not defined by his position in the corporate ladder, but by his trajectory. "Up or out" is the Sociopath's trajectory.

The Sociopath may be a pawn now, but he's trying to maneuver upwards.

(04-15-2015 11:17 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  If he doesn't own the business, then he isn't he just a more ruthlessly efficient worker bee than the rest?

The Sociopath's work ethic is conditional. He may work very hard and efficiently, but only if he benefits from it. He sacrifices comfort for cash, visibility, publicity, credibility, a good reputation, access to investors, etc.

The Loser is a comfort-maximizer and risk-minimizer. The Clueless tends to have an unconditional work ethic and sacrifices himself for nothing. Perhaps for a meager raise.