<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/s8QHeAv4_XE” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>22:54looking at us right now if you come to22:58your younger self what is the advice he23:01would give to our students so the single23:04biggest piece of career advice that I’ve23:06ever heard that I realized after the23:08fact I was implementing I didn’t realize23:09it at the time was Scott actually Scott23:11Adams the guy who invented Dilbert easy23:14to remember who came up with this piece23:16of advice because how many how many23:17people invented Dilbert he his his big23:20advice was it’s not about any particular23:22skill it’s about combining skills right23:25the world is becoming an ever more23:26complicated place everything is slamming23:28together right it feels it used to be23:29discrete or not combining do a large23:32part to what we’ve been talking about23:34and so it’s not about any individual23:36skill it’s about come it’s about23:37combining skills and then constantly23:39layering on new skills and so like the23:41great example is you can you can be an23:42engineer and you manage your track you23:44could be a writer the professional23:45writer but what if you’re an engineer23:47with writing skills right and then you23:49can be the engineer who can then23:50actually articulate what engineers do23:52which might be helpful or you could be a23:54writer right who understands engineering23:56culture and you could write books about23:57technology right and all of a sudden23:58like both of those are like highly24:00differentiated skills like those those24:02are very special skills and then what if24:04on top of that you thread it in24:05knowledge of Education and then you have24:07the ability to write about technology24:09and education and all of a sudden that’s24:10a very special thing24:11and then basically through the course of24:13your life you just keep layering in you24:14just keep you keep layering in more and24:16more skills we were actually I’ll brag24:17on Sebastian you know professor turn24:20executive turned entrepreneur right it’s24:23like no talk it you know talk about like24:24a magical combination of skills right24:26there’s there’s no possible professor24:27who could keep up with him in business24:28and there are very few business people24:30who can keep up with them on the24:31intellectual side of things and so the24:33magic is in the combination and and I24:35suspect the world’s gonna get more in24:37the direction where combinations are24:39going to get much more valuable and the24:41people who have the combinations of24:43skills of attending on the students take24:44more than a degrees that’s good time24:50would ask one last question sure how do24:52you get rid of fear how do I do what24:55fear fear seem so fearless what’s that24:58yes that means what’s that mean if ei25:01are AR see so much of it is it’s you25:06actually actually read a study actually25:08read a study area there’s a psychologist25:10named Dean Simonton who has studied the25:12history of creativity across every25:14different kind of creative field art25:15music and business and everything and25:17his his big conclusion out of the entire25:19thing is the people who succeed are the25:21people who just keep swinging the bat at25:23the ball over and over and over again25:24it’s just repeated attempts basically25:27people who don’t quit and who keep25:28swinging and so just it’s just sort of25:30this I don’t know maybe it’s maybe it’s25:32my Midwestern background or just25:34old-fashioned stubbornness but you know25:36it’s it’s very easy to opt out it’s very25:38easy to get discouraged and give up but25:39if you kind of have the mentality which25:41I don’t know where it comes from but25:42I’ve got it I’ve got the mentality the25:44basically says it kind of doesn’t matter25:45how many times you get knocked down the25:47key the key thing is to just keep25:48getting back up and keep swinging and
(4 min) The people on the right are nicer to me when they disagree.
Trump departs from the fact checking more aggressively than we’ve seen before, but the results appear to be quite good.
Trump hasn’t broken stuff, which is better than people thought would happen.
It seems to be that Sam’s concern is the departure from the fact is so extreme that it will cause lasting damage. It will cause others to discard facts or cause people to not care about facts.
When Sam says there is a big problem with the Trump Experience I can’t see it because I see Trump as a unique experience. I think that the next President will be a reaction to Trump, like Trump was a reaction to Obama.
Sam’s assumption is wrong, but while his brand is “Rationality”, in the realm of politics, facts don’t matter.
(13 min ) The way people make decisions don’t depend on facts. Politics was always 100% bullshit, so Trump prioritizes winning outcomes in all cases.
Compare that to politicians whose priority is the truth.
In politics, the truth gets your economy in trouble because people loose confidence when you talk truthfully about the problems.
Sam’s prioritization of the truth is valuable in almost all except politics.
(19:55) In politics, there is no truth. There is no process to get there and even if there was, you wouldn’t want it because it wouldn’t be winning (and half the country wouldn’t believe you).
[Tim: since you can’t tell the truth all the times, disregard it completely]
Trump prioritied the Rust Belt states and made sure his message fit there. Hillary Clinton didn’t. She prioritized her gender.
Many Republicans would choose Nikki-Haley (showing that Hillary broke the glass ceiling)
(25 min) You’ve got to give Hillary credit for breaking the glass ceiling.
(14:26) If Putin continued to do the same things with elections in the future (and why would he because he seems to like a President Trump)
The best way to deal with interference is not to talk to that in a press conference. (Its just a good play)
I kind of like Putin’s play to say that we can interview the 12 Indicted hackers if he can interview Americans. (Uninformed)
Scott Adams (Creator of Dilbert) joins Dave to discuss the trend of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome,’ the crumbling mainstream media, the Trump/Russia controversy, his predictions for future candidates and the future of Trump, and more.
Just this week there was this idiotic thing with Trump in Japan, dumping out his food in the fish pond.
What they don’t show you is the moment before the Japanese Prime Minister did the same thing.
(10 min) I don’t think media can make money in the middle of the political spectrum
Trump’s opponents might see sense if Trump does something useful with:
- North Korea
- Health Care
As long as Trump stays provocative in the same way, people will get used to it.
(18 min) Scott Adams: Russia is a weird relationship – frenemies, but we have deep connections. Why wouldn’t be talking to them? What are we going to do: depose Trump and Pence, put in Paul Ryan. This would be an act of war. Are we going to nuke Russia?
If Obama knew that Trump was a Russian spy, they would be out on the street yelling about it.
Why would it be illegal to get true information?
(22 min) If you were to ask someone on the street to sort out the Russian thing it would be a jumble.
Persuasion Democrats with Charisma:
- George Clooney
- Mark Cuban
- Van Jones
All Politicians are celebrities, we’re going to live in a world where facts don’t matter.
Even if you’re pro-Trump, you know that the fact-checkers aren’t wrong all the time, but you like the way that he is persuading in the right way
- Health Care
- Growth = 4%
If he is successful, you might go out on top and Anoint his successor and keep the brand clean.
Hugh MacLeod’s cartoon is a pitch-perfect symbol of an unorthodox school of management based on the axiom that organizations don’t suffer pathologies; they are intrinsically pathological constructs.
.. So while most management literature is about striving relentlessly towards an ideal by executing organization theories completely, this school, which I’ll call the Whyte school, would recommend that you do the bare minimum organizing to prevent chaos, and then stop. Let a natural, if declawed, individualist Darwinism operate beyond that point. The result is the MacLeod hierarchy. It may be horrible, but like democracy, it is the best you can do.
.. The Sociopath (capitalized) layer comprises the Darwinian/Protestant Ethic will-to-power types who drive an organization to function despite itself. The Clueless layer is what Whyte called the “Organization Man,” but the archetype inhabiting the middle has evolved a good deal since Whyte wrote his book (in the fifties). The Losers are not social losers (as in the opposite of “cool”), but people who have struck bad bargains economically – giving up capitalist striving for steady paychecks.
.. The Sociopaths defeated the Organization Men and turned them into The Clueless not by reforming the organization, but by creating a meta-culture of Darwinism in the economy: one based on job-hopping, mergers, acquisitions, layoffs, cataclysmic reorganizations, outsourcing, unforgiving start-up ecosystems, and brutal corporate raiding. In this terrifying meta-world of the Titans, the Organization Man became the Clueless Man. Today, any time an organization grows too brittle, bureaucratic and disconnected from reality, it is simply killed, torn apart and cannibalized, rather than reformed. The result is the modern creative-destructive life cycle of the firm, which I’ll call the MacLeod Life Cycle.
.. Based on the MacLeod lifecycle, we can also separate the three layers based on the timing of their entry and exit into organizations. The Sociopaths enter and exit organizations at will, at any stage, and do whatever it takes to come out on top. The contribute creativity in early stages of a organization’s life, neurotic leadership in the middle stages, and cold-bloodedness in the later stages, where they drive decisions like mergers, acquisitions and layoffs that others are too scared or too compassionate to drive. They are also the ones capable of equally impersonally exploiting a young idea for growth in the beginning, killing one good idea to concentrate resources on another at maturity, and milking an end-of-life idea through harvest-and-exit market strategies.
.. The Losers like to feel good about their lives. They are the happiness seekers, rather than will-to-power players, and enter and exit reactively, in response to the meta-Darwinian trends in the economy. But they have no more loyalty to the firm than the Sociopaths. They do have a loyalty to individual people, and a commitment to finding fulfillment through work when they can, and coasting when they cannot.
.. The Clueless are the ones who lack the competence to circulate freely through the economy (unlike Sociopaths and Losers), and build up a perverse sense of loyalty to the firm, even when events make it abundantly clear that the firm is not loyal to them. To sustain themselves, they must be capable of fashioning elaborate delusions based on idealized notions of the firm — the perfectly pathological entities we mentioned.
.. Unless squeezed out by forces they cannot resist, they hang on as long as possible, long after both Sociopaths and Losers have left
.. The Gervais Principle is this:
Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves.
.. The Gervais principle differs from the Peter Principle, which it superficially resembles. The Peter Principle states that all people are promoted to the level of their incompetence. It is based on the assumption that future promotions are based on past performance. The Peter Principle is wrong for the simple reason that executives aren’t that stupid, and because there isn’t that much room in an upward-narrowing pyramid. They know what it takes for a promotion candidate to perform at the to level. So if they are promoting people beyond their competence anyway, under conditions of opportunity scarcity, there must be a good reason.
.. Scott Adams, seeing a different flaw in the Peter Principle, proposed the Dilbert Principle: that companies tend to systematically promote their least-competent employees to middle management to limit the damage they can do. This again is untrue. The Gervais principle predicts the exact opposite: that the most competent ones will be promoted to middle management. Michael Scott was a star salesman before he become a Clueless middle manager. The least competent employees (but not all of them — only certain enlightened incompetents) will be promoted not to middle management, but fast-tracked through to senior management. To the Sociopath level.
.. In Season Three, the Dunder-Mifflin executives decide to merge the Stamford and Scranton branches, laying off much of the latter, including Michael Scott. His counterpart, the Sociopath Stamford branch manager, whose promotion is the premise of the re-org, opportunistically leverages his impending promotion into an executive position at a competitor, leaving the c0mpany in disarray. The Dunder-Mifflin executives, forced to deal with the fallout, cynically play out the now-illogical re-org anyway, shutting down Stamford and leaving Michael with the merged branch instead. The executives (David Wallace and Jan Levinson-Gould) are completely aware of Michael’s utter incompetence. Their calculations are obvious: giving Michael the expanded branch allows them to claim short-term success and buy time to maneuver out of having to personally suffer longer-term consequences.
Jim’s remark on the drama is revealing. Comparing Michael to his exiting sociopath peer he says: “Whatever you say about Michael, he would never have done something like this,” a testament to Michael’s determinedly deluded loyalty to the company that will never be loyal to him. We can safely assume that Michael’s previous promotion to regional manager occurred under similar circumstances of callous short-term calculations by sociopaths.
.. So why is promoting over-performing Losers logical? The simple reason is that if you over-perform at the Loser level, it is clear that you are an idiot. You’ve already made a bad bargain, and now you’re delivering more value than you need to, making your bargain even worse. Unless you very quickly demonstrate that you know your own value by successfully negotiating more money and/or power, you are marked out as an exploitable clueless Loser. At one point, Darryl, angling for a raise, learns to his astonishment that the raise he is asking for would make his salary higher than Michael’s. Michael hasn’t negotiated a better deal in 14 years. Darryl — a minimum-effort Loser with strains of Sociopath — doesn’t miss a step. He convinces and coaches Michael into asking for his own raise, so he can get his.
A Loser who can be suckered into bad bargains is set to become one of the Clueless. That’s why they are promoted: they are worth even more as Clueless pawns in the middle than as direct producers at the bottom, where the average, rationally-disengaged Loser will do. At the bottom, the overperformers can merely add a predictable amount of value. In the middle they can be used by the Sociopaths to escape the consequences of high-risk machinations like re-orgs.
.. 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.
.. But when the rest of the office learns of Michael’s impending interview (during Michael’s farcical attempts at using a Survivor style contest to choose his successor, which predictably, only Dwight takes seriously), the true Sociopaths act. Jim and his Sociopath girlfriend Karen instantly call up David and announce their candidacies for the same position. Unknown to them, Ryan, the intern-turned-rookie, has also spotted the opportunity. The outcome is spectacular: Ryan gets the job, Michael loses, Karen is promoted to manager of the Utica branch, and Jim — who still has not yet completely embraced his inner Sociopath — returns to Scranton. We learn later — as the Gervais principle would predict — that David Wallace never seriously considered Michael more than a temporary last resort. Much later, in a deposition during Jan’s lawsuit against the company, he reveals that Michael was never a serious candidate.
.. So the Loser — really not a loser at all if you think about it — pays his dues, does not ask for much, and finds meaning in his life elsewhere. For Stanley it is crossword puzzles. For Angela it is a colorless Martha-Stewartish religious life. For Kevin, it is his rock band. For Kelly, it is mindless airhead pop-culture distractions. Pam has her painting ambitions.
.. If you leave out the clear marked-for-Clueless characters, Dwight and Andy, you are left with the two most interesting characters in the show: the will-he-won’t-he Sociopath-in-the-making, Jim, and the strange Toby. Toby is a curious case — intellectually a Sociopath, but without the energy or ambition to be an active sociopath.
.. The Sociopaths know that the only way to make an organization capable of survival is to buffer the intense chemistry between the producer-Losers and the leader-Sociopaths with enough Clueless padding in the middle to mitigate the risks of business.
.. And here we find that Ryan is still not quite experienced enough as a sociopath. He foolishly goes the Enron route, attempting to cook the books to avoid failure, and is found out and arrested. A true master Sociopath like David Wallace would instead have spotted the impending failure, promoted a Michael to take over (who would obviously be so gratified at being given a new white-elephant title that he would not have seen disaster looming), and have him take the blame for the inevitable failure. Completely legal and efficient.
.. . Of the eight systemic metaphors in the book, the one that is most relevant here is the metaphor of an organization as a psychic prison. The image is derived from Plato’s allegory of the cave ..
.. it divides people into those who get how the world really works (the Sociopaths and the self-aware slacker Losers) and those who don’t (the over-performer Losers and the Clueless in the middle).
.. where Gervais has broken new ground, primarily because as an artist, he is interested in the subjective experience of being Clueless (most sitcoms are about Losers). For your everyday Sociopath, it is sufficient to label someone clueless and manipulate them. What Gervais managed to create is a very compelling portrait of the Clueless, a work of art with real business value.
.. Here is the ultimate explanation of Michael Scott’s (and David Brent’s) careers: they are put into a position of having to explain their own apparent, unexpected and unexamined success. It is easy to explain failure. Random success is harder. Remember, they are promoted primarily as passive pawns to either allow the Sociopaths to escape the risks of their actions, or to make way for the Sociopaths to move up faster. They are presented with an interesting bit of cognitive dissonance: being nominally given greater power, but in reality being safely shunted away from the pathways of power. They must choose to either construct false narratives or decline apparent opportunities.
.. The Clueless resolve this dissonance by choosing to believe in the reality of the organization. Not everybody is capable of this level of suspension of disbelief. Both Ricky Gervais (David Brent) and Steve Carrel (Michael Scott) play the brilliantly drawn characters perfectly. The most visible sign of their capacity for self-delusion is their complete inability to generate an original thought. They quote movie lines, lyrics and perform terrible impersonations (at one point Michael goes, “You talking to me?” a line he attributes, in a masterful display of confusion, to “Al Pacino, Raging Bull“). For much of what he needs to say, he gropes for empty business phrases, deploying them with staggering incompetence. When Michael talks, he is attempting, like a child, to copy the flawless Powertalk spoken by sociopaths like Jan and David Wallace. He is oblivious to the fact that the Sociopaths use Powertalk as a coded language with which to simultaneously sustain the (necessary) delusions of the Clueless and communicate with each other.
.. It is not just the Sociopaths who conspire to sustain Michael’s delusions. So do the checked-out Losers, sometimes out of kindness, and sometimes out of self-interest. In one particularly perfect summing up, Oscar describes the impending “Dundies” award ceremony (a veritable monument to the consensual enablement of Michael’s delusions) as “The Dundies are kind of like a kid’s birthday party. And you go, and there’s really nothing for you to do there, but the kid’s having a really good time, so you… You’re kind of there. That’s… That’s kind of what it’s like.”
.. But Michael’s grand narrative requires constant, exhausting work to keep up. He must amplify and rope in even the most minor piece of validation into the service of his script. When, in a moment of weakness, Jim shares a genuine confidence with him, Michael is so thrilled that he turns the moment into a deep imaginary friendship, practically becoming a stalker, even mimicking Jim’s hairstyle. At the other end, he over-represses even the slightest potential dent to his self-image.
.. This sort of ability to work hard to sustain the theater of his own delusions, half-aware that he is doing so, is what makes Michael a genuine candidate for promotion to the ranks of the Clueless. Dwight is interesting precisely because he lacks Michael’s capacity for this pathological meta-cognition, and the ability to offer semi-believable scripts that others can at least help bolster. Dwight is not talented enough at Cluelessness to ever be promoted.