Back when I got my first corporate job I was very much an idealist when it came to the corporate environment. I had faith in that if I simply worked hard, did a solid job and demonstrated my value to the company I worked for back then, I would have a great career ahead of me. A couple of years of not taking vacations, putting in 80 hours a week every week, answering calls and emails around the clock later, I was still in the exact same position that I was in when I started. I’d gotten a few pay raises but that was about it. As I spent my birthday reflecting on that year’s accounts, I started thinking of expectancy and equity theory. The basics of these two theories is that people form cause and effect chains, “if I do X, then Y” (expectancy) and they expect people to maintain equitable relationships, meaning “if I produce value above my current salary to the company, the company will reward me for it“, however this can often not be the case, because there is no clear cause-effect chain between doing a great job and climbing the corporate ladder.
In my case, I expected the company to recognize my efforts and reward me with what I desired. This is not much different from how many men will be perfect husbands on paper, they provide, they are great fathers, treat their wife as the center of their world, they contribute to the community and if asked nobody would have a problem saying “Oh, he’s a great guy”. They expect that if they do all the things right, for instance they fill their wife’s 487 bullet-point list, they are great dads, they communicate, they do chores and so on, their wife will return the equity to them in the form of sex and devotion, yet many of them find themselves in dead bedrooms or getting zeroed out.
It’s no different from how many Good Boys will work hard their entire lives, sacrifice their teens and twenties to become great husbands to a woman who has partied her way through life. Then they expect this woman to recognize their efforts and reward them with what they desire. It’s a covert contract on a grand scale.
The Gervais Principle and Intersexual Dynamics
Illimitable Man shared a series of essays with me in a DM during a conversation detailing the Gervais principle  and suddenly many things started to make sense. This principle outlines 3 types of people within an organizational hierarchy, sociopaths, the clueless and losers. The life cycle of a company according to this principle is that a sociopath with an idea recruits just enough losers, meaning people who make a bad economic bargain where they produce more value than they get out of the company, with the excess production of each loser going to the sociopath. As the organization grows, the sociopath has to hire a layer of the clueless to serve as middle managers in the organization to prevent the reaction from being an all out explosion.
The three types are very well defined in an essay I found :
Corporate Sociopath – A person whose professional behavior lacks
morality, and whose actions use manipulation and
game-planning in order to achieve money,power, and prestige.
Corporate Loser – A person who is competent with their work and
shows professional morality and integrity,and is aware of the lacking
morality in corporate leadership (Corporate Sociopaths). Corporate losers do not have
loyalty to their company since they are aware of how disloyal the company is to them,
however they rarely leave soul-crushing employment because of
self-instilled fear, laziness, or lack of creativity.
Corporate Clueless– A person who is loyal to their company,
completely unaware of how disloyal the company is to them. The
corporate clueless person will always follow management directions,
honored to even get the attention of their sociopathic leadership.
The Clueless create a communication and hierarchical gap between the
sociopaths and the losers, and also can be easily manipulated to be
the fall guy for the sociopath when things go wrong.
The sociopath has a will to power and seeks to dominate, the Losers are happiness seekers rather than power seekers, both parties have little loyalty to the present company and enter and exit at every stage of the company life-cycle. Sociopaths enter and exit opportunistically, and do whatever it takes to come out on top. Losers enter and exit reactively based on Darwinian trends in the economy, and while they have little loyalty to the organization they do have loyalty to individual people within the company. The clueless, lacking the ability to circulate freely through the economy like losers and sociopaths develop a deep attachment to the company.
If one applies this principle to intersexual dynamics, one can likewise create a hierarchy, one has the Alpha males on top, these are the men who are privy to the secret world of sex. Some call them “naturals”, but the reality is simply that they through some vicissitude of fate happens to have been introduced to the sexual market place early due to having value in some form. This is the High School quarterback, the guy with above average looks, maybe the good looking rebel, or the rich boy that everyone wants to hang around. They are the kings of the emerging sexual market place simply because in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
One man I know became a bit of an early alpha simply because he crushed hard on a girl at 12 – 13 years old, he never made a move, then her family suddenly moved away. As a result of losing out on his first oneitis in this manner he simply started to escalate very directly and rapidly to never have to go through it again.
The losers, not defined as “losers in life” but simply guys who made a bad deal exist in a few types. They are mostly aware of the bad state of the sexual market place but lack the will or capability to move up in the ranks. Some may eventually move up in the hierarchy and become sociopaths, while others will accept their current situation and remain in the same place.
The Clueless are where I’d put most men in the present sexual marketplace. They buy into the 487 bullet point checklist, talk of “just needing more communication“, are unaware how society on the macro level do not care about them, or how the male performance burden and female hypergamy works. They are men who have bought into the Blue Pill Illusion.
However, within intersexual dynamics, there is a 4th category, a bridge between the sociopaths and the clueless, this is someone who has some awareness of the underlying dynamics, but is either not willing or ready to fully accept it. This requires the creation of a layer of rationalization between what they do know is true, yet that which they cannot accept. This is the fertile soil for purple pill approaches. The attempt is to bridge the gap between the sociopath and the clueless by injecting idealism and morality.
Summary and Conclusions
I tend to think that most of us create suppositional causal chains to guide our actions and inform our choices. The corporate sociopath has a view of the corporate world that is very close to the reality of the corporate world, thus he is able to create accurate and effective causal chains to attain the desired outcome namely power. The corporate loser has an accurate view and can construct accurate and effective causal chains, but in being happiness seeking rather than power seeking, the outcomes differ. The corporate clueless has a very inaccurate view, often based in idealism, romanticism or whatever else, that makes the causal chains they create both ineffective and inaccurate.
As I sat there, sipping some scotch and reflecting on how I’d spent the last few years at corporate, I first became angry with the corporate hierarchy that had lied to me, with the society that had lied to me, and all the individuals who had been complicit in pulling the wool over my eyes. However, as the anger intensified, I became angry with myself. Yes, I had been lied to and had a view of the corporate world that was flawed. Yes, this world view was constructed based on input from others, yet I cannot say if this input was based on malice or incompetence, so I gave the corporate hierarchy, society and the people the benefit of the doubt.
I’m responsible for accepting their input, and I’m responsible for the actions that I did that followed from it.
The result was that I took responsibility for being complicit by changing that which I could, namely my own actions and my own view of the corporate world. This is why during a conversation with Anthony where he asked me about some feedback he received on his “Marrying Medusa” video, and accusations that he was not taking responsibility for his actions, I told him that he took responsibility that the second he walked out. You can control your own actions, and you are responsible for your own actions, not those of others.
There is a faith among some men in a form of karmic justice whereby they will be rewarded for being good. I’ve gotten a lot of heat for being inconsistent when it comes to idealism and morality. I do not see this as a problem, because I do not see a contradiction between viewing the world realistically and having a moral code. Anthony for instance has a moral code where he does not help women cheat, yet he understands that this does not prevent them from cheating, it merely means he is not an accomplice to their action. He could contact the girl’s boyfriend or husband, and tell him “hey man, your girl wanted me to sleep with her“, by not doing so one could argue that he is an accessory should that woman cheat. After all, in legal terms if one knows that a crime is about to be committed yet fail to report it one can be charged as an accessory.
The distinction between the two, is accepting that you are responsible for your own actions, but not the actions of others. This may appear a minor distinction at best, semantics or sophism at worst, but it is very telling of a person’s perspective. You see, when people start to throw around moral arguments and use shame, guilt, fear or all of the above, it is a sign that they are attempting to control the actions of others, rather than their own. It would be a hell of a lot easier if all men just got together in a cartel, decided that from now on we would enforce a code of behavior for both men and women with harsh punishments because this pushes the responsibility away from the individual man and over on all men.