Dilbert's World

[Thomas Knierim]

There may finally be a scientific explanation for the thorny relationship between the two fundamental Dilbertian white-collar working classes - management and engineering. As we know from the Dilbert comic strip, engineers are always smarter than managers but they invariably earn less. There is no obvious explanation for this paradox. An experiment involving domestic pigs (yes, pigs!) described by Richard Dawkins in a later addendum to his famous book “The Selfish Gene” may finally shed some light onto this issue. Dawkins gives an example of what he considers to be a case of a paradoxical ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) in a Skinner box. It runs like this: You put two pigs into a Skinner box. A Skinner box is an apparatus in which an animal learns to feed itself by pressing a lever. Food is delivered in small quantities whenever the lever is pressed. Dawkins describes the experiment:

“Experimental psychologists are accustomed to putting pigeons or rats in small Skinner boxes, where they soon learn to press delicate little levers for food reward. Pigs can learn the same thing in a scaled-up Skinner box with a very undelicate snout lever. B.A. Baldwin and G.B. Meese trained pigs in a skinner sty, but there is an added twist to the tale. The snout lever was at one end of the sty; the food dispenser at the other. So the pig had to press the lever, then race up to the other end of the sty to get the food, then rush back to the lever, and so on. This sounds all very well, but Baldwin and Meese put pairs of pigs into the apparatus. It now became possible for one pig to exploit the other. The ‘slave’ pig rushed back and forth pressing the bar. The ‘master’ pig sat by the food chute and ate the food as it was dispensed. Pairs of pigs did indeed settle down into a stable master/slave pattern of this kind, one working and running, the other doing most of the eating.”

One might imagine who is the engineer pig and who is the management pig. Of course, the engineer pig is the one that operates the lever and keeps running back and forth to catch some of the food. The management pig is the one that keeps eating. Dawkin continues:

“Now for the paradox. The labels ‘master’ and ‘slave’ turned out to be all topsy-turvy. Whenever a pair of pigs settled down to a stable pattern, the pig that ended up playing the ‘master’ or ‘exploiting’ the role was the pig that, in all other ways, was subordinate. The so-called ‘slave’ pig, the one that did all the work, was the pig that was usually dominant. Anyone knowing the pigs would have predicted that, on the contrary, the dominant pig would have been the master, doing most of the eating; the subordinate pig should have been the hard-working and scarcely-eating slave.

How could this paradoxical reversal arise? It is easy to understand once you start thinking in terms of stable strategies. […] The strategy ‘if dominant, sit by the food trough; if subordinate work the lever’ sounds sensible but would not be stable. The subordinate pig, having pressed the lever, would come sprinting over, only to find the dominant pig with its front feet firmly in the trough and impossible to dislodge. The subordinate pig would soon give up pressing the lever, for the habit would never be rewarded. But now consider the reverse strategy: ‘If dominant, work the lever; if subordinate sit by the food trough.’ This would be stable, even though it has the paradoxical result that the subordinate pig gets most of the food. All that is necessary is that there should be some food left for the dominant pig when it charges up from the other end of the sty. As soon as it arrives, it has no difficulties in tossing the subordinate pig out of the trough. As long as there is a crumb left to reward it, its habit of working the lever, and thereby stuffing the subordinate pig, will persist.”

And such are the absurd consequences of division of labor. Able-minded individuals will have a tendency to make it in engineering, doing most of the work, while their less able conspecifics will have a tendency to be placed in management, doing most of the eating, because according to game theory, it happens to be the best strategy. Dilbert would be delighted.

Thomas

[a random hack]

Dilbert would be delighted

he's not the only one :lol:

so what happens when you put three pigs in the device?
has anyone worked out the ideal manager pig / engineer pig ratio yet? :lol:
of course, if the dominant pig was really smart, it would train the submissive pig to do the running :)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jan 10 2004, 10:33 PM

so what happens when you put three pigs in the device?


I'm thinking the third pig would be Dogbert....


has anyone worked out the ideal manager pig / engineer pig ratio yet? :lol:


Dogbert, probably B)

[a random hack]

seems catberb would have about 100 dominant pigs, and one catbert :lol:

[sonrisa]

Catbert would have them all trained to do the running too, except for the Wally pig of course. :D

[Ronagon]

Interesting, Thomas.

In the real world, there is an unwritten rule that height determines qualification for management, and little else. In fact, if you look at a fresh bumper crop of incoming employees and watch carefully, you will notice the tallest ones being the most instantly respected, and promoted much faster.

The standard, believable hero, is always a tall male. No one really buys a short male as a hero, because we all know that the heroic stamina doesn't last long in such people. Because they don't inspire fear and awe in others. They can never have that effortlessly relaxed self-assurance that the tall have.

This mayalso explain why females tend to be overlooked in management, as they tend to be shorter on average. Taller females tend to not have this problem.

The sad truth is, it's an animal response. Human brains are still monkey brains, and do not process the notion of competency as a determination of leadership. Rather, height is what scared little monkeys respond to.

Mind you, looks are very important... people with very good looks will be cherished, and usually tend to exist as self-entitled parasites of the hard-working, less-than-beautiful, but that's not the same thing as qualification for leadership. For that, you need height.

Humans are still childish little monkeys at heart.

[sonrisa]

Interesting insight Ronagon, & you may have a point. I had a boss who wasn't very tall at one of the places where I used to work, & we always teased him about being short. Fortunately, he was good natured & took our teasing with good humor, but eventually he did take a job with another company. Evidently he felt they offered him a better position, but why was he even looking in the first place? Perhaps he was being passed up for advancement & promotions for the very reason you state- that the higher ups didn't take him seriously (whether they realized it or not) because of his (lack of) height.

As a female, I can tell you another reason women are often passed up for promotiions- if a woman possesses what are considered executive qualities (assertiveness, decisiveness, & the like) she is considered to be a b*tch. But in a male these are positive qualities. Go figure.

Monkey brains, you just may have the right of it....

[Ronagon]

Yes, well, it's even worse than that... Buckle up, I'm preparing to spew.

The determinative quality that all females are attracted to, is easygoing, effortless, unshakable confidence and dominance. No female really finds a less-than-granite male attractive sexually.

And the interesting thing about females is that when they don't find a male attractive, they have little or no self-restraint in just how childishly they will treat him. There are no exceptions to this rule... it's pretty disturbing how many supposedly mature females will revert to this, instantly, when it suits them to do so.

And actually, it goes for other males, too. They pull the same thing.

But, my point in all of this is, that in order to really have all those positive and admirable qualities that I just mentioned in the second paragraph, a male needs sheer size. Because in this monkey world, beneath all the enlightened posturing (and that's really all it is), only males who are feared and coveted for their genetic size attributes are treated with real respect.

They are typically the most self-overrating, conceited brats imaginable, operating on the ethical level of a childish "Baby Huey", but your average hooting, feces-throwing human isn't fazed by that.

Only the large males are capable of having no fear whatsoever, so they go where they please and smugly laugh to themselves as they get off on watching all the smaller monkeys scramble about, trying to "justify" the "rightness" of the "alpha male"s behavior.

And the fact that every female gets moist for this sort of creature, is enough of a character indictment for me, of the entire female "species". I wasted years of my life, being trapped by guilt in a relationship with a sociopathic, social-climbing, exploitative, white trash, secret size queen myself. I don't do anything for females any more; they just use you, until their dream Hulk comes along.

Not that I admire males any more... They all seem to jump on the "worship alpha males" bandwagon, too.

[a random hack]

The determinative quality that all females are attracted to, is easygoing, effortless, unshakable confidence and dominance. No female really finds a less-than-granite male attractive sexually.But, my point in all of this is, that in order to really have all those positive and admirable qualities that I just mentioned in the second paragraph, a male needs sheer size. Because in this monkey world, beneath all the enlightened posturing (and that's really all it is), only males who are feared and coveted for their genetic size attributes are treated with real respect.

so lemme get this straight. To gain 'easygoing, effortless, unshakable confidence', a male needs 'genetic size'?

maybe you need to develop a napoleon complex?

"Napoleon Complex, n: An arrogant and aggressive demeanor
that arises to combat insecurity about one's small stature"

[Ronagon]

No, because a "non-tall" guy with a Napoleon complex, is a cliched laughingstock. It's the cheapest and easiest way to mock a short guy...

So, in summary, there's no way to even break even when you're a short male. If you try the route of easygoing and non-defensive, you're a pathetic joke. If you try the route of aggressive and whatnot, then you're a pathetic joke who tries too hard.

It would seem that only someone like Herve Villachaize finally found the solution to the problem, in the end. *L*

(Maybe the world owes a debt of gratitude to Randy Newman, and his wonderful song). :knockout:

[a random hack]

ron,
i guess if you care what you think other people think, you CAN'T win :)

[Ronagon]

Random,

Oh yes. I agree completely. Everything is mind over matter. I am completely to blame for the preexisting animal laws of nature.

I mean, if someone suddenly points a gun at the back of my head and pulls the trigger, it's MY fault if my bloody skull fragments go flying. Yes, I would definitely be to blame. I see things so clearly now; thanks.

I mean, it's not like reality actually exists or anything, and it's our job to do whatever we can with that.

It's not like all of evolution is founded on that principle or anything. Because we all know that giraffe necks became long over millions of years from stretching and them believing in it.

Yes, you have converted me. Thanks.

[a random hack]

don't thank me, it's your reasoning :lol:

[sonrisa]

ok I'm watching Dilbert right now, so let's see if I can apply Ron's theories to this topic. Dilbert is the tallest, & ostensibly the hero of the show, except that he keeps getting hustled by Wally & the PHB, both of whom are shorter than he is. This week he has been hustled into switching jobs with the building security goon. His security tie bends up too. Alice is coming off as a bitch & I don't think she gets moist for Dilbert. Has Dilbert ever had a girlfriend? I don't seem to remember him even getting to 1st base with a girl much less scoring a home run.... Wally is running a casino in the office & Dillmom is winning at the slots using Dilbert's coin collection... So Wally, who is shorter, is running a successful enterprise... Dogbert is the shortest of them all, & while I wouldn't call it a Napoleon complex, he definitely has a superiority complex, claims he's infallible. And he cheats at 21. Dillmom is being condescending.... Meantime, the security goon was such a roaring success at Dilbert's job that he got a job as an engineer at a better company, & Dilbert just got hustled into switching jobs with a sewer worker. Dogbert cleaned up at 21. So there you have it, I'd say the shorties & the ladies definitely got the better of the tall protagonist hero.

[Ronagon]

Sonrisa,

There's one fatal flaw with your whole "Dilbert" comparison.

Point one: Dilbert is a COMIC STRIP.

Dilbert was written FOR the downtrodden office pee-on. The creator of the strip knows he will be successful with his readership, if he portrays Dilbert as the tallest in the strip, and all the others as tiny, disgusting animals. Because that's how the Dilbert-esque see themselves in relation to others, or what they wanna believe.

But in real life, which Dilbert is NOT, then Dilbert would very probably be one of the shorter members in the office pool. And the bosses would be tall guys.

My point still holds.

[sonrisa]

hi Ron, yes I know Dilbert is not real life. The smartest character on the show is a dog & the stories border on the absurd. I was merely attempting to apply your theory to the topic at hand.
You don't say anything about intelligence in your height theory, so let me add something from real life, culled from many discussions with my girlfriends (& I have quite a few of these) on the matter. We have discovered that the tall good-looking hero types, the kind you say we get moist over, generally turn out to be narcissistic airheads. There are exceptions to this of course (& they are generally taken!) but the rule of thumb is, the taller & better looking these guys are, the more likely their pea brains will be so full of themselves that there is no room for anything else. So while these dudes make for decent eye candy (& that's about all they are good for) we don't want to have to put up with them 24/7.

[sonrisa]

Hey Ron, looks like the University of Fla agrees with your theory

click here (http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2003news/heightsalary.htm)

[a random hack]

i'm surprised businesses haven't picked this up yet, and started empolying talented short arses :)

[Ronagon]

Sonrisa,

I just got back from vacation, and checked out that link.

Thanks... I've known it for quite some time, but it does bear repeating.

(Notice how Random Hack either says it's all in my head, or, once a series of studies confirm what I've been saying, his denial turns into the typical glib mockery of "short arses". The comment, "I guess I was wrong, you were right" would of course only occur to someone like me to say...

He must be taller than 5'9"). :shakehead:

[sonrisa]

Ron, hope you enjoed your vacation! :)

Random, how tall r u? :P

[a random hack]

5' 10" :D :moody: :wallbash: :star:

[sonrisa]

looks like you're right again Ron

[Ronagon]

sonrisa,

Yep.

If I've learned one thing in this hellish life, I've learned people and what really makes them tick.

And thanks for giving me credit for knowing what I'm talking about. Giving due credit is a very rare thing in this world, yet probably one of the most important.

[a random hack]

:o yep, an inch sure makes a big difference :lol:

[sahyo]

:lol:

[Ronagon]

It doesn't make a big difference, as it's so close to average male height... an inch above, actually.

Do I really need to point out that average blends in? And that nowhere is it safer in life than in the crowd?

Significantly above that average, inspires a certain measure of awe and respect, as all animal species respect size above all other attributes. Once again, you're safe there, too. Better than safe.

But, below that, well... You don't really need me to pull out crayons and draw you a diagram, now do you? ;) :P

[...]

..howcome tiny men run major corporations, are head of state, are excellent artists or actors, drive very big cars and tend to get beautiful women as a result, while I [6'6] do security for a living?

[sahyo]

dots confused?

[sonrisa]

well Dots, at 6'6", I don't think anybody's gonna mess with u..... anybody with 1/2 a brain, that is....

but more to the point, do you want to do security for a living? If no, have you tried something else? What do u wanna do? um, to pay the rent, that is

oh 1 more thing, these tiny men- is that their bods or their minds?

[Ronagon]

Exactly my point...

"..." doesn't realize that all he'd have to do is get educated, and he'd be promoted much faster than the shorter guys, because of his height.

I'll also tell "..." that all those beautiful women are just using those short guys as safety nets, but really wish they could be with the big guys.

Many beautiful women know they can be lazy and just play trophy for hard-working, unattractive guys. These guys naively invest in these kinds of females, thinking that they're honestly attracted to them, but they're not. They're ruthless opportunists.

Over time, these females grow and develop their minds, abilities, and their fortunes with these guys... and when "that special feeling is gone", they suddenly leave these guys without warning, and continue to trade up guys, until they have enough stability on their own, to be able to not need unattractive rich guys anymore.

That's when the lazy, beautiful females and the lazy, conceited studs finally are able to settle down with each other. Because they finally can.... because if they'd tried it from the very beginning, it never would've worked, because they both would've had nothing, and they damn sure weren't going to support each other through tough times.

This, in a nutshell, is the life-plan of a beautiful person: lead people on, let them help you, build your energy, abandon them suddenly and without warning, let other, eager-to-be-possible-the-next-in-your-pants people protect you from being accountable to your previous victim, and then repeat that cycle until you have stored up enough resources to where you can finally be with someone just like you, and look back on all your flattering path of destruction and raise a smiling toast to each other.

That is how the real world operates... it protects and cherishes people like this all the time. If you're lucky, they die in slow horror, from some kind of cancer, and maybe you get one final chance to condemn and shun them utterly, when they come crawling back to you, who are suddenly that "one special person" that they "never forgot".

I tell you, God is either nonexistent, a deadbeat dad, or an incredible sadist, because life is nothing but a turd.

[sahyo]

ron, is body shorter than 5'9"
and is happening feeling as though ugly?

[sahyo]

may have missed a post if already said height

[...]

..wow, perhaps the reason why short guys are quite succesfull, is that they're driven by such angst like Ronagon projects, to compensate. But that's an easy copout, isn't it? BTW, all's just fine here, no confusion...

[Ronagon]

Tell ya what, "...": your "copout" comments are basically worthless... at least to me. But I'm sure the other folks in here think they're really gosh-darn cool.

If the short life weren't truly miserable, I don't really think that I'd be going through all the scans and tests for a certain disease that is often due to stress, misery, and loneliness.

So, I suggest that you stop wasting your time on the internet, and go out and live the life you're able to. :) :thumbsup:

I keep wondering if we're through with this discussion yet.

[sahyo]

If the short life weren't truly miserable, I don't really think that I'd be going through all the scans and tests for a certain disease that is often due to stress, misery, and loneliness.


ron, dear....has happened friends, bodies called sick

....friend which lived below, before asheera moved this apartment, has happened 10 operations, 8 which were emergency so body not die....last month, happened starting a seizure which would've happened coma....the eyesight stopped, the bowels released, she couldn't walk so she crawled, without sight, to the kitchen for the medication she needed....

though body 45, everyday the body pains, but she refuses pain medication....the feet are numb....the left arm and leg swollen and starting deforming....diabetes.....high blood pressure....heart problems....has to wear panty diapers since bowels and bladder leak....and, will be starting dialysis soon....yet she doesn't think life is miserable, isn't miserable, expresses gratitude, and doesn't feel lonely....she likes alone....

she doesn't blame called life....


:hug: