If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Employers more likely to hire potential drinking buddies as opposed to top quality candidates which pretty much explains Fark   (forbes.com) divider line 87
    More: Obvious, Fark  
•       •       •

3777 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Dec 2012 at 12:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-06 09:07:36 AM
In my experience its been you had to be both -- networked in AND top quality candidate. So you try to only drink with top quality candidates. It sure sucks having to review resumes before happy hour.
 
2012-12-06 10:34:01 AM
My usual question for interviewees is what kind of beer they drink. The one guy I didn't interview, answered the question on his first day with "miller high life, from a glass, with ice". He didn't really work out for plenty of other reasons, eventually got fired for incompetence, so now that question is kind of crucial.
 
2012-12-06 11:00:46 AM
In my company we go for both. You must be high-quality and produce high-quality results in your work especially considering we do print materials. Though we also aren't going to hire a stick in the mud. We all have a more sarcastic and sardonic sense of humor as well, so if you get offended too easily you won't be hired.

/drinking is a plus
 
2012-12-06 12:04:26 PM
So you're saying that free market enterprise doesn't exist in a vacuum of meritocracy?
 
2012-12-06 12:04:56 PM
We keep a case of beer in the frig at work.
 
2012-12-06 12:05:51 PM

InmanRoshi: So you're saying that free market enterprise doesn't exist in a vacuum of meritocracy?


Somehow this is the government's fault.
 
2012-12-06 12:07:09 PM
Bull(cough)
 
2012-12-06 12:07:12 PM
They're also not likely to let the world know they're hiring in that situation. So the lack of applicants will prevent applicants from finding a potential reason to complain
 
2012-12-06 12:07:38 PM
One irony here is that most of the citizens of the fastest-growing economies in the world, and probably most of the patent filers, are people with low alcohol tolerance.

/dlink after school? Yes, after Harvard you have beer!
 
2012-12-06 12:08:21 PM

serial_crusher: "miller high life, from a glass, with ice".

 

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-06 12:08:47 PM
I just got back from a "working" trip to Vegas with my boss and coworkers, so I'm getting a kick out of this.
 
2012-12-06 12:08:49 PM
And that's why all the farking psychopathic assholes who kiss up to the bosses are always your boss, instead of the people who actually do any work.
 
2012-12-06 12:09:13 PM
Pretty much all the jobs I have had came from connections either I made or my family already made even my paper route as a kid. With that knowledge I knew even as a young kid that most of your opportunity comes from who ya know and a bit of luck but your success comes from not burning those bridges.
 
2012-12-06 12:10:31 PM
No one is going to hire you if you come off as an asshole. Personality does actually go a long way.

Of course this article doesn't talk about finding a job in today's world, where you do need to have some requirements just to get that interview.
 
2012-12-06 12:11:35 PM
As a skilled worker, and a skilled drinker, I support this practice.
 
2012-12-06 12:12:16 PM
I don't trust people who don't drink (unless it's because they have a problem - in which case they at least have interesting stories from the past), so no, I wouldn't hire someone that I wouldn't want to drink with.
 
2012-12-06 12:12:43 PM
This is why I would never open up a brewery.
 
2012-12-06 12:13:58 PM

serial_crusher: My usual question for interviewees is what kind of beer they drink. The one guy I didn't interview, answered the question on his first day with "miller high life, from a glass, with ice". He didn't really work out for plenty of other reasons, eventually got fired for incompetence, so now that question is kind of crucial.


good on you to disqualify muslims, mormons, AA members and celiacs.
 
2012-12-06 12:14:47 PM
For a while now I've thought this was the explanation for that one Moderator.
 
2012-12-06 12:15:11 PM
i45.tinypic.com

I want to be her drinking buddy
 
2012-12-06 12:16:14 PM
The hiring practices (and many other things) will soon lead me to drinking at my desk.
Gawd but I could use a drink right now...
 
2012-12-06 12:17:20 PM

dumbobruni: good on you to disqualify muslims, mormons, AA members and celiacs.


They can't have beer, but whisky is okay.
 
2012-12-06 12:17:36 PM

Odd Bird: The hiring practices (and many other things) here will soon lead me to drinking at my desk.
Gawd but I could use a drink right now...


/glad I came back to the thread, +1 for AVG
 
2012-12-06 12:18:47 PM
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know. When you know someone's weaknesses up front, it makes it easier to overcome or work around them. Plus, if they're your buddy, quid pro quo.
 
2012-12-06 12:18:53 PM

SlagginOff: I don't trust people who don't drink (unless it's because they have a problem - in which case they at least have interesting stories from the past), so no, I wouldn't hire someone that I wouldn't want to drink with.


I don't think "my liver looks like swiss cheese" is a cool story :C .

Once I worked with a person that didn't drink, didn't smoke, dressed neatly, rarely spoke, and moved like a frikkin' robot. That guy creeped me out because he didn't made a single noise when he moved.

But, when we talked, I found out he was just a quirky guy.
 
2012-12-06 12:19:23 PM
I prefer "circle jerk" but the modmins keep ignoring me.
 
2012-12-06 12:21:52 PM
Considering that we tend to spend more time with co-workers than family or friends, this makes perfect sense. Selecting an unqualified candidate over a qualified one is bad business, but picking the person you like from a range of qualified candidates seems like common sense.

OTOH "corporate culture" is an oxymoron.
 
2012-12-06 12:23:20 PM
we started talking about how we both love stalking celebrities in New York. . . we had this instant connection. . . I loved her.

Freaks!
 
2012-12-06 12:23:37 PM

dumbobruni: serial_crusher: My usual question for interviewees is what kind of beer they drink. The one guy I didn't interview, answered the question on his first day with "miller high life, from a glass, with ice". He didn't really work out for plenty of other reasons, eventually got fired for incompetence, so now that question is kind of crucial.

good on you to disqualify muslims, mormons, AA members and celiacs.


we also have a strict anti-butthurt policy, so you'd be way out!

/ Nah, "I don't drink" is a perfectly valid answer.
// We'd have to buy special desks for the celiacs. 
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-06 12:25:16 PM
www.kegworks.com
 
2012-12-06 12:33:21 PM

slackananda: Considering that we tend to spend more time with co-workers than family or friends, this makes perfect sense. Selecting an unqualified candidate over a qualified one is bad business, but picking the person you like from a range of qualified candidates seems like common sense.


Exactly. The interview is 50% "can you do the job", 50% "How will you fit in with our carefully balanced team dynamics", and 50% "How well do you handle constant context switches, because, that's what this job is". (IT operations for a big big company - fixing broken stuff for angry people). I'm gonna be hanging out with you 40 hours a week or more, and if you poison the attitude and perception of the department, then that's a problem. Let's figure that out right now, before it becomes a problem.
 
2012-12-06 12:34:22 PM
"Hell no I don't have a drinking problem. I have a lack of money to pay the bar tab problem."
 
2012-12-06 12:35:56 PM

djh0101010: slackananda: Considering that we tend to spend more time with co-workers than family or friends, this makes perfect sense. Selecting an unqualified candidate over a qualified one is bad business, but picking the person you like from a range of qualified candidates seems like common sense.


Exactly. The interview is 50% "can you do the job", 50% "How will you fit in with our carefully balanced team dynamics", and 50% "How well do you handle constant context switches, because, that's what this job is". (IT operations for a big big company - fixing broken stuff for angry people). I'm gonna be hanging out with you 40 hours a week or more, and if you poison the attitude and perception of the department, then that's a problem. Let's figure that out right now, before it becomes a problem.


Don't forget the 90% mental part.
 
2012-12-06 12:40:36 PM

dumbobruni: serial_crusher: My usual question for interviewees is what kind of beer they drink.

good on you to disqualify celiacs.


The My Little Pony Killer: They can't have beer, but whisky is okay.


Hey, stupids.
www.columbusalive.com
 
2012-12-06 12:43:48 PM
I know I've missed out on possible promotions at past employers b/c I don't drink. At one place the guy in charge of infrastructure and IT was worthless and played games half of the day but the boss loved him b/c they went out like frat boys 4 nights a week.
 
2012-12-06 12:44:07 PM

Fark Rye For Many Whores: dumbobruni: serial_crusher: My usual question for interviewees is what kind of beer they drink.

good on you to disqualify celiacs.

The My Little Pony Killer: They can't have beer, but whisky is okay.

Hey, stupids.
[www.columbusalive.com image 620x415]


To an extent I agree with them. Not sure I'd consider that stuff "real beer".
 
2012-12-06 12:44:54 PM
I always thought of it as the 'Airport Test'

Could I tolerate an extended flight delay with only this person to talk to?

You were most likely capable of doing the job before we called you in. I'm just judging to see if you are tollerable.
 
2012-12-06 12:49:18 PM
You have to fit into the company culture, you have to be able to work with people

Most jobs can be taught, you just got to be likeable and malleable


There is a reason most unemployeed people sound and look alike. Yes i'm talking to you fattie
 
2012-12-06 12:50:02 PM
In my industry, you're more likely to be ostracized if you don't golf. Nobody really cares whether or not you drink.
 
2012-12-06 12:53:30 PM
Yet another reason to be self employed.
 
2012-12-06 12:54:47 PM
So I should show up drunk to the interview?
 
2012-12-06 12:54:54 PM

InmanRoshi: So you're saying that free market enterprise doesn't exist in a vacuum of meritocracy?


Only if you don't consider "plays well with others" a merit.
 
2012-12-06 12:55:12 PM

StrandedInAZ: In my industry, you're more likely to be ostracized if you don't golf. Nobody really cares whether or not you drink.


Given that I've occasionally convinced my boss to get margaritas at lunch, I approve of this practice. Especially since she's way nicer after a drink or two!
 
2012-12-06 12:55:20 PM
I work as a business consultant and the guy who hired me for my current job literally told me in my interview "I like to hang out with my team, we go out for happy hour a lot so it is important that you join. What are your favorite drinks?" The guy hates his home life so he wants his to be his distraction.
 
2012-12-06 12:56:50 PM

Wizzin: Yet another reason to be self employed.


Because then you can call it "drinking with coworkers" instead of "drinking alone"?
 
2012-12-06 12:58:36 PM
It's a rarity that people go out for drinks here (ivy league university).

/doesn't drink
 
2012-12-06 01:02:50 PM

CygnusDarius: SlagginOff: I don't trust people who don't drink (unless it's because they have a problem - in which case they at least have interesting stories from the past), so no, I wouldn't hire someone that I wouldn't want to drink with.

I don't think "my liver looks like swiss cheese" is a cool story :C .

Once I worked with a person that didn't drink, didn't smoke, dressed neatly, rarely spoke, and moved like a frikkin' robot. That guy creeped me out because he didn't made a single noise when he moved.

But, when we talked, I found out he was just a quirky guy.


I said interesting, not cool :) .

I'm half joking anyway, I'm only weary of the teetotalers on moral high ground that don't drink and judge everyone that does. If you just don't like drinking that's fine with me. Most likely though my social life won't have many parallels to yours.
 
2012-12-06 01:07:49 PM

Headso: Pretty much all the jobs I have had came from connections either I made or my family already made even my paper route as a kid. With that knowledge I knew even as a young kid that most of your opportunity comes from who ya know and a bit of luck but your success comes from not burning those bridges.


I'm the same. Have a useless degree in Psychology but work for an engineer who happens to be a family friend. My previous job was acquired by meeting the owner at a bar, he was drunk (as was I) but told me to come in on Monday about a job. He hired me on the spot when I showed up the following Monday morning.
 
2012-12-06 01:16:07 PM
You're all my drinking buddies cause I drink when I Fark. That way I can say I'm not drinking alone. You're never drinking alone when you're on the internet.
 
2012-12-06 01:18:41 PM
But I was told that the free market hired the most qualified and it was hard work that got you ahead. Republicans surely wouldn't lie to me
 
2012-12-06 01:34:48 PM

Warlordtrooper: But I was told that the free market hired the most qualified and it was hard work that got you ahead. Republicans surely wouldn't lie to me


Being personable and getting along with your coworkers is a big part of "being qualified". At least at my company. Then again, our "culture" is our number one priority. This doesnt mean you have to drink, and plenty dont. You can learn to do a good job, but how well you fit is just as important. Maybe it's because everyone is on a "team" and we all work together. Luckily our "culture" is more about wearing flip flops and tshirts, and having lots of outings and events. When you work somewhere that constant interaction is important, getting along is very crucial.
 
2012-12-06 01:38:55 PM
If you're getting the interview, they pretty much consider you qualified (if your resume and references hold). The point of the interview is to determine if you're an insufferable asshat.
 
2012-12-06 01:44:20 PM

Warlordtrooper: But I was told that the free market hired the most qualified and it was hard work that got you ahead. Republicans surely wouldn't lie to me


Bar crawling 5 nights a week IS hard work, you commie pansy

/pull yourself up by your bootlegger straps
 
2012-12-06 01:53:06 PM

Warlordtrooper: But I was told that the free market hired the most qualified and it was hard work that got you ahead. Republicans surely wouldn't lie to me


There are book smarts and there are street smarts. The most formidable people have both. Being the most qualified for the job doesn't necessarily mean being the smartest or having the best resume. It is a combination of personality traits, knowledge and successful track record.

Higher learning / knowledge can get you better interview opportunities. having really sought after skills can make up for being an awkward asshole. It is kind of like the crazy / hot scale for dating women.
 
2012-12-06 01:55:17 PM
Bullshiat. This is a good way to get your arse fired. I've hired a lot of people in and I never gave a thought to whether they would make good friend or would be fun to go out drinking with. An employee is an employee and can never really be a friend. A manager has to keep this distance.
 
2012-12-06 01:55:52 PM

CygnusDarius: SlagginOff: I don't trust people who don't drink (unless it's because they have a problem - in which case they at least have interesting stories from the past), so no, I wouldn't hire someone that I wouldn't want to drink with.

I don't think "my liver looks like swiss cheese" is a cool story :C .

Once I worked with a person that didn't drink, didn't smoke, dressed neatly, rarely spoke, and moved like a frikkin' robot. That guy creeped me out because he didn't made a single noise when he moved.

But, when we talked, I found out he was just a quirky guy.


Ya think? Now the questions are, why is he just a quirky guy, and what can you expect from him in the long run (will he kill you when you manage to offend his sense of order in the universe)?
 
2012-12-06 01:58:48 PM

JackieRabbit: Bullshiat. This is a good way to get your arse fired. I've hired a lot of people in and I never gave a thought to whether they would make good friend or would be fun to go out drinking with. An employee is an employee and can never really be a friend. A manager has to keep this distance.


Im sure you'd much rather babysit a whiny pain in the ass as a manager.
 
2012-12-06 02:04:24 PM
I am extremely hungover.

Should I put that on my résumé?
 
2012-12-06 02:06:37 PM

SlagginOff: I'm half joking anyway, I'm only weary of the teetotalers on moral high ground that don't drink and judge everyone that does. If you just don't like drinking that's fine with me. Most likely though my social life won't have many parallels to yours.


True. Though I know teetotalers that should move to Washington (hint: they puff, puff pass)

/drug of choice?
 
2012-12-06 02:06:59 PM
....never mind. Just that special drunk-hangover.

/still going on the resume.
//don't judge. I like Michigan beers. Apparently a lot.
 
2012-12-06 02:08:34 PM

JackieRabbit: Bullshiat. This is a good way to get your arse fired. I've hired a lot of people in and I never gave a thought to whether they would make good friend or would be fun to go out drinking with. An employee is an employee and can never really be a friend. A manager has to keep this distance.


I agree 100%. Hard to be objective when your drinking buddy or best friend farks up and you have to call him/her on it.
 
2012-12-06 02:09:49 PM

Doom MD: JackieRabbit: Bullshiat. This is a good way to get your arse fired. I've hired a lot of people in and I never gave a thought to whether they would make good friend or would be fun to go out drinking with. An employee is an employee and can never really be a friend. A manager has to keep this distance.

Im sure you'd much rather babysit a whiny pain in the ass as a manager.


No farking way. I only hire people who self-manage. I had one employee like this. He didn't make it through his probation period.
 
2012-12-06 02:15:05 PM

Warlordtrooper: But I was told that the free market hired the most qualified and it was hard work that got you ahead. Republicans surely wouldn't lie to me


Know what I find more annoying than Teetotalers? Dingleberries who use any and all opportunities make a slam against a political party no matter how hard they have to contort the square peg into the round hole.
 
2012-12-06 02:16:11 PM

johnboy2978: Warlordtrooper: But I was told that the free market hired the most qualified and it was hard work that got you ahead. Republicans surely wouldn't lie to me

Know what I find more annoying than Teetotalers? Dingleberries who use any and all opportunities make a slam against a political party no matter how hard they have to contort the square peg into the round hole.


This.
 
2012-12-06 02:17:12 PM

JackieRabbit: Bullshiat. This is a good way to get your arse fired. I've hired a lot of people in and I never gave a thought to whether they would make good friend or would be fun to go out drinking with. An employee is an employee and can never really be a friend. A manager has to keep this distance.


Dwight Shrute?
 
2012-12-06 02:26:40 PM

megarian: I am extremely hungover.

Should I put that on my résumé?


Yes. Also, put down you were Time's Person of the Year for 2006.
 
2012-12-06 02:30:16 PM

PanicMan: megarian: I am extremely hungover.

Should I put that on my résumé?

Yes. Also, put down you were Time's Person of the Year for 2006.


Since that issue came out, I haven't been able to go out in public without people noticing me.

Or maybe it was my mugshot from that day.

Hard to tell.
 
2012-12-06 02:31:42 PM
This is more true of conservatives than liberals, and of engineering, the professions, government and business than liberal-heavy sectors of the economy, but hey, I knew that as an undergraduate.

All the heavy-drinking, heavy partying jocks I went to university with are now: 1) running the country or 2) working as mall cops.

The unexpectly high level of gays and bisexuals in the top echelons of corporations, governments, sports, etc., is due to the drinking and BJs mixing freely, especially among "risk takers", i.e., jocks.

Brains, wimps, nerds and geeks need not apply. Except in IT, of course, where large numbers of pretty boys (and a few geek girls) surround an IT Queen who hires and fires.

Now, here comes the really interesting part: the tendancy to hire "drinking buddies" rather than the smart, hard-working, competent employees you'd expect HR staff and manager-administrators to want is so profound, it explains practically every thing mysterious about human society, politics, etc.

One, conspiracy theories are unnecessary if you know how business as usual works.

Two, the Peter Principle (that people rise to the level of their incompetence) is merely a special case of a more general law.

Three, this law, which you have my permission to call Brantgoose's Law, is that society runs not on competence, intelligence, skill, wit, or wisdom, but on trust, and people basically trust only 1) people like themselves and 2) sociopaths.

Sociopaths are experts in creating trust. They are a sort of genius at it. Thus they rise to the level of their inevitable exposure and destruction rather than mere incompetence, and that level is the top of any human venture in sports, religion, science, politics, etc.

The pointy-haired bosses are all sociopaths, although there is a sufficient over-supply of fugly or stupid sociopaths to fill other levels of hierarchy and social rank and station.

Even the social and political laws that govern the rise of the Drinking Buddy-ocracy (aka the Idiocracy) are merely special cases of a still more general law, namely that bad pennies drive out good.

Called Gresham's Law in economics, this law is a basic paradox, namely the Good is the Enemy of the Best and therefore people will always prefer the sure-fire and familiar second best or even mediocrity to the brilliant erratic ways of genius, sainthood or mere competence even.

The reason that conservatives are more likely to prefer "a guy you'd like to have a beer or twenty with" is that they are born incompetents. They are the dumb people who don't know they are dumb. Liberals and geeks and geniuses tend to be the smart people who know they are dumb or the smart people who know they are smart but who can be spectacularly dumb, and so forth.

Conservatives, unlike liberals, base their friendships, business, etc., on trusting In Group members, while liberals tend to trust to laws, institutions, rules and abstract contracts rather than personality or "character". A liberal may very well judge you on the content of your character but she is less likely to care about who you are or what you are. Liberalism in the economic sense, of course, is all about abstract and formal relationships, usually temporary and expedient rather than based on knowing who your grandfather was, belonging to the same church or race, etc.

These two basic types of personality profiles (we are all mixtures) reflect different ways of thinking.

For example, in linguistics you have grammar-based (or rule-based) versus performance-based.
The type of Grammar Nazi who simply can not tolerate a split-infinitive, a dangling participle, a preposition used to end a sentence with, etc., is more like a conservative, while the person who allows a violation of the rules because it is Shakespearean in its brilliance is more like a liberal.

These great dichotomies and similar structures repeat themselves in human affairs like the great Platonic solids and patterns such as the fractal repeat in Nature.

And that is why mediocrity is the key to success. Number one, the conservatives in power want more of their own, so your incompetence and other flaws will endear you to them, whether you are an alcoholic or simply dyslexic. Conservatives are moralizing bastards but they are not necessarily moral, or ethical, or safe to trust with your sons and daughters. Liberals can be just as bad but they are always bad in a different way, so they too tend to pursue more of the same.

As a result, you will find very few heavy drinkers in the bureaucracy below the level of senior managers or parachuting partisans and politicians.

You will find professors happily drinking bad wine and eating rubbery cheese, while the party of frat boy preppies next door are stoned out of their minds on any number of expensive drugs and mixed drinks.

If you have the knack of spotting these fundamental universal rules, you will realize that the Universe is a piece of jerry-built crap that barely works and that God either does not exist or he is a demented sociopath Himself.

If not, you will need conspiracy theories to explain why things go wrong.

Which is absurd. The only conspiracy the Universe needs is stupidity. Stupidity, raised to a sufficient level, becomes Evil. There is no Devil--humans are quite capable of doing his job without any assistance.

As for God, a few simple rules suffice to create all the chaos and order a Universe needs or can simply survive, so if there ever was a God, Richard Adams is probably right and he refuses to exist because that would be a dead giveaway and make nonsense of free will.
 
2012-12-06 02:34:46 PM

davidab: Ya think? Now the questions are, why is he just a quirky guy, and what can you expect from him in the long run (will he kill you when you manage to offend his sense of order in the universe)?


Despite all that, he was more or less accepting of new ideas, he just didn't embrace them to his life.

We did joke around that he had an extensive knife collection, which he didn't.
 
2012-12-06 02:38:16 PM

brantgoose: This is more true of conservatives than liberals, and of engineering, the professions, government and business than liberal-heavy sectors of the economy, but hey, I knew that as an undergraduate.

All the heavy-drinking, heavy partying jocks I went to university with are now: 1) running the country or 2) working as mall cops.

The unexpectly high level of gays and bisexuals in the top echelons of corporations, governments, sports, etc., is due to the drinking and BJs mixing freely, especially among "risk takers", i.e., jocks.

Brains, wimps, nerds and geeks need not apply. Except in IT, of course, where large numbers of pretty boys (and a few geek girls) surround an IT Queen who hires and fires.

Now, here comes the really interesting part: the tendancy to hire "drinking buddies" rather than the smart, hard-working, competent employees you'd expect HR staff and manager-administrators to want is so profound, it explains practically every thing mysterious about human society, politics, etc.

One, conspiracy theories are unnecessary if you know how business as usual works.

Two, the Peter Principle (that people rise to the level of their incompetence) is merely a special case of a more general law.

Three, this law, which you have my permission to call Brantgoose's Law, is that society runs not on competence, intelligence, skill, wit, or wisdom, but on trust, and people basically trust only 1) people like themselves and 2) sociopaths.

Sociopaths are experts in creating trust. They are a sort of genius at it. Thus they rise to the level of their inevitable exposure and destruction rather than mere incompetence, and that level is the top of any human venture in sports, religion, science, politics, etc.

The pointy-haired bosses are all sociopaths, although there is a sufficient over-supply of fugly or stupid sociopaths to fill other levels of hierarchy and social rank and station.

Even the social and political laws that govern the rise of the Drinking Buddy-ocracy (ak ...


So you're entry level, huh?
 
2012-12-06 02:51:22 PM
When I was younger my ability to drink got me promoted twice in 2 years at one of the big four consulting groups.

These days I hardly drink at all as I like to think I've grown up a bit.
 
2012-12-06 02:57:40 PM

SlagginOff: I don't trust people who don't drink (unless it's because they have a problem - in which case they at least have interesting stories from the past), so no, I wouldn't hire someone that I wouldn't want to drink with.


static2.businessinsider.com
 
2012-12-06 03:01:23 PM

brantgoose: This is more true of conservatives than liberals, and of engineering, the professions, government and business than liberal-heavy sectors of the economy, but hey, I knew that as an undergraduate.

All the heavy-drinking, heavy partying jocks I went to university with are now: 1) running the country or 2) working as mall cops.

The unexpectly high level of gays and bisexuals in the top echelons of corporations, governments, sports, etc., is due to the drinking and BJs mixing freely, especially among "risk takers", i.e., jocks.

Brains, wimps, nerds and geeks need not apply. Except in IT, of course, where large numbers of pretty boys (and a few geek girls) surround an IT Queen who hires and fires.

Now, here comes the really interesting part: the tendancy to hire "drinking buddies" rather than the smart, hard-working, competent employees you'd expect HR staff and manager-administrators to want is so profound, it explains practically every thing mysterious about human society, politics, etc.

One, conspiracy theories are unnecessary if you know how business as usual works.

Two, the Peter Principle (that people rise to the level of their incompetence) is merely a special case of a more general law.

Three, this law, which you have my permission to call Brantgoose's Law, is that society runs not on competence, intelligence, skill, wit, or wisdom, but on trust, and people basically trust only 1) people like themselves and 2) sociopaths.

Sociopaths are experts in creating trust. They are a sort of genius at it. Thus they rise to the level of their inevitable exposure and destruction rather than mere incompetence, and that level is the top of any human venture in sports, religion, science, politics, etc.

The pointy-haired bosses are all sociopaths, although there is a sufficient over-supply of fugly or stupid sociopaths to fill other levels of hierarchy and social rank and station.

Even the social and political laws that govern the rise of the Drinking Buddy-ocracy (aka ...


Write a poem, emo kid.
 
2012-12-06 03:06:05 PM
Wouldn't hire someone who played or ate squash either.
 
2012-12-06 03:12:44 PM

Deep Contact: Wouldn't hire someone who played or ate squash either.


What about Jai alai?
 
2012-12-06 03:16:00 PM

brantgoose: This is more true of conservatives than liberals, and of engineering, the professions, government and business than liberal-heavy sectors of the economy, but hey, I knew that as an undergraduate.

All the heavy-drinking, heavy partying jocks I went to university with are now: 1) running the country or 2) working as mall cops.

The unexpectly high level of gays and bisexuals in the top echelons of corporations, governments, sports, etc., is due to the drinking and BJs mixing freely, especially among "risk takers", i.e., jocks.

Brains, wimps, nerds and geeks need not apply. Except in IT, of course, where large numbers of pretty boys (and a few geek girls) surround an IT Queen who hires and fires.

Now, here comes the really interesting part: the tendancy to hire "drinking buddies" rather than the smart, hard-working, competent employees you'd expect HR staff and manager-administrators to want is so profound, it explains practically every thing mysterious about human society, politics, etc.

One, conspiracy theories are unnecessary if you know how business as usual works.

Two, the Peter Principle (that people rise to the level of their incompetence) is merely a special case of a more general law.

Three, this law, which you have my permission to call Brantgoose's Law, is that society runs not on competence, intelligence, skill, wit, or wisdom, but on trust, and people basically trust only 1) people like themselves and 2) sociopaths.

Sociopaths are experts in creating trust. They are a sort of genius at it. Thus they rise to the level of their inevitable exposure and destruction rather than mere incompetence, and that level is the top of any human venture in sports, religion, science, politics, etc.

The pointy-haired bosses are all sociopaths, although there is a sufficient over-supply of fugly or stupid sociopaths to fill other levels of hierarchy and social rank and station.

Even the social and political laws that govern the rise of the Drinking Buddy-ocracy (ak ...


WFT did I just try to read? You need to lay off the narcotic.
 
2012-12-06 03:33:40 PM

brantgoose: This is more true of conservatives than liberals, and of engineering, the professions, government and business than liberal-heavy sectors of the economy, but hey, I knew that as an undergraduate.

All the heavy-drinking, heavy partying jocks I went to university with are now: 1) running the country or 2) working as mall cops.

The unexpectly high level of gays and bisexuals in the top echelons of corporations, governments, sports, etc., is due to the drinking and BJs mixing freely, especially among "risk takers", i.e., jocks.

Brains, wimps, nerds and geeks need not apply. Except in IT, of course, where large numbers of pretty boys (and a few geek girls) surround an IT Queen who hires and fires.

Now, here comes the really interesting part: the tendancy to hire "drinking buddies" rather than the smart, hard-working, competent employees you'd expect HR staff and manager-administrators to want is so profound, it explains practically every thing mysterious about human society, politics, etc.

One, conspiracy theories are unnecessary if you know how business as usual works.

Two, the Peter Principle (that people rise to the level of their incompetence) is merely a special case of a more general law.

Three, this law, which you have my permission to call Brantgoose's Law, is that society runs not on competence, intelligence, skill, wit, or wisdom, but on trust, and people basically trust only 1) people like themselves and 2) sociopaths.

Sociopaths are experts in creating trust. They are a sort of genius at it. Thus they rise to the level of their inevitable exposure and destruction rather than mere incompetence, and that level is the top of any human venture in sports, religion, science, politics, etc.

The pointy-haired bosses are all sociopaths, although there is a sufficient over-supply of fugly or stupid sociopaths to fill other levels of hierarchy and social rank and station.

Even the social and political laws that govern the rise of the Drinking Buddy-ocracy (ak ...


You either need laid, promoted, or handed a drink or some combination of the three.
 
2012-12-06 03:34:40 PM

Deep Contact: Wouldn't hire someone who played or ate squash either.


I would never play squash, tennis, golf, etc... But, what's wrong with eating squash. It's delicious if you know how to cook it and highly nutritious.
 
2012-12-06 03:56:05 PM
My softball playing ability was a topic during my first "real" job interview.

Writing code, hitting for power, and playing third base. I was the total package.
 
2012-12-06 04:00:09 PM
Most people don't want to admit it, but you could take a reasonably intelligent, motivated kid straight out of college and toss him into just about any role with some mentoring and he'd be decent enough at it in a few years.

Most people move up 'the ladder' slowly. They have to spend months or years at job X before they get a chance to do job Y. It's not that job Y is actually harder, many would argue that jobs get easier as you move up, at least easier in many aspects.

If you hire a good person that is going to fit in and they're lacking in some area, so what? They can learn. This is especially true in specialized fields where few of the candidates are going to have direct relevant experience or in areas involving lots of soft skills. It will be less true in areas like science and engineering.
 
2012-12-06 04:01:19 PM

JackieRabbit: WFT did I just try to read? You need to lay off the narcotic.


Hell, I was going to tell him he needed to relax and have a drink. He is so wound up he snapped and went off the rails into crazytown.
 
2012-12-06 04:01:29 PM
Pump them with alcohol then pump them for information.
 
2012-12-06 04:38:44 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Most people don't want to admit it, but you could take a reasonably intelligent, motivated kid straight out of college and toss him into just about any role with some mentoring and he'd be decent enough at it in a few years.

Most people move up 'the ladder' slowly. They have to spend months or years at job X before they get a chance to do job Y. It's not that job Y is actually harder, many would argue that jobs get easier as you move up, at least easier in many aspects.

If you hire a good person that is going to fit in and they're lacking in some area, so what? They can learn. This is especially true in specialized fields where few of the candidates are going to have direct relevant experience or in areas involving lots of soft skills. It will be less true in areas like science and engineering.


THIS. If I had the bux to start my game company, one of my first hires would be a girl I know. She's one of those people who trys everything and excells at it all. She's an avid musician (in a couple of bands), a very very talented graphical artist, has a degree in astronomy from a top 10 school, and as far as I know, knows nothing of game design.

I can teach her game design. I can't teach insatiable curiousity and creative drive, which she has in abundance.
 
2012-12-06 04:44:14 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: I want to be her drinking buddy


I wouldn't mind being her "buddy," but I'd rather it be doing something other than drinking.

But whatever floats your boat, chief.
 
2012-12-06 06:49:58 PM

Rindred: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: I want to be her drinking buddy

I wouldn't mind being her "buddy," but I'd rather it be doing something other than drinking.

But whatever floats your boat, chief.


Drinking buddies fark.

Sorry it never works out for you.
 
2012-12-06 07:29:54 PM

SquiggsIN: Deep Contact: Wouldn't hire someone who played or ate squash either.

I would never play squash, tennis, golf, etc... But, what's wrong with eating squash. It's delicious if you know how to cook it and highly nutritious.


The innards have that gross pumpkin smell.
 
2012-12-06 10:39:02 PM
I always suspected something like this was true, but I'm pretty sure the owner of the last company where I worked hired his gambling buddies, rather than his drinking buddies. (He was AA, so he didn't drink.) It always amazed me that all the higher-ups were hard-core republicans, and yet the company was basically one big welfare state. Only about 1/3 of the employees were both competent and motivated enough to actually do their jobs. How they're still in business, I'll never know.
 
Displayed 87 of 87 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report