When I first read this, I found it too cynical for my tastes. But now, I can say it's a bit relatable. Being a software engineer, I don't find the "bad" bargain I have for myself that bad. I am a happy "loser."
But over the years, I have observed— multiple times—obviously talented people who have been slogging for a shitty company for years. It takes them forever to realize they are wasting their time and have to take some action. Some never realize, too.
Usually, they are people who have been promoted by the organization. They were early employees. They believed in the vision and found it hard to lose hope that things might change. The "Clueless" as the article notes.
But there can be an easier explanation as well. Partly, it's also sunk-cost bias. It's possible they do recognize the terrible place they are in. But find it incredibly hard to cut their losses. The organization can always dangle the carrot of "the turnaround is around the corner", "we will promote you soon", "the team depends on you".
A parallel is stock investing. I once invested in terrible company. Even though the deluge of bad news never stopped, it took me four years an my investment falling by 60% to admit that I need to admit I made a bad decision and sell my holdings.
The tone of the article is extremely negative. Sociopath, Clueless, Loser. And that leads to a generally negative framing of everything and all of the people in question.
The general concepts: some people act as capitalists, some people find meaning in their work and lose sight of the capitalistic nature of work, and some people find meaning outside of work and do so by doing the bare minimum at work and not playing the capitalist game, are valid archetypes, however.
The terminology is intentionally punchy as a way to get pageviews - if it were dryly academic, would we be talking about this article 13 years later? I think there was a FAQ somewhere on the original series that was like Q: "Is this just satire?" and A: "Nothing is just satire." It was supposed to be humorous in its over-directness because Venkatesh actually engages with his audience on an emotional level, at the cost of some precision.
The Pink Floyd album "Animals" terms them "Dogs", "Sheep", and "Pigs", which is just as cynical (probably moreso) but also has the catchiness which Sociopath/Loser/Clueless exhibits but Opportunists/Pragmatists/Idealists does not.
> Orwell showed the effects of “undemocratic structures” by reducing individuals to animal types, and so does Waters, simplifying the classes further into three (and leaving out humans altogether): the ruling pigs, praetorian and aspiring capitalist dogs, and the sheep, the mindless masses.
But over the years, I have observed— multiple times—obviously talented people who have been slogging for a shitty company for years. It takes them forever to realize they are wasting their time and have to take some action. Some never realize, too.
Usually, they are people who have been promoted by the organization. They were early employees. They believed in the vision and found it hard to lose hope that things might change. The "Clueless" as the article notes.
But there can be an easier explanation as well. Partly, it's also sunk-cost bias. It's possible they do recognize the terrible place they are in. But find it incredibly hard to cut their losses. The organization can always dangle the carrot of "the turnaround is around the corner", "we will promote you soon", "the team depends on you".
A parallel is stock investing. I once invested in terrible company. Even though the deluge of bad news never stopped, it took me four years an my investment falling by 60% to admit that I need to admit I made a bad decision and sell my holdings.