TWIR: XIII "Survival of the Fittest..."
Monday, October 22, 2007
I recently took an online quiz that told me 98% of all women in the United States drink less than me. I wasn’t terribly concerned as I answered NO to the question, “Do you ever have a drink when you wake up in the morning to take the edge off?” Technically it’s true. I can’t help it that tailgates start early, or Essex has a 3-drink brunch special on the weekend. It’s not like I’m making a Jack & Coke roadie on the way into the office every morning. Anyhow, 2% of all women in the US is a decent number. At least it didn’t say something like, “Legs is back in college, Bizz can out-drink you in a head to head competition, and Tink had a hell of a weekend, but you should probably still go ahead and find an AA meeting to crash.”
On a daily basis we brave the elements around us. Be it our climate in crisis, less than desirable social situations, chilly rain drops crippling tri-state transit and causing Lexington Avenue to explode, working with crazies, or wildlife invading our homes (a pigeon flew into our apartment and dive-bombed my roommate in the shower a few months ago). We have to put our best foot forward to deal, get past it, and go get some Clorox to disinfect the hell out of it. This is survival of the fittest.
What I think it all boils down to, is that Darwin and his little theory of natural selection are wrong, at least to some extent… at least I hope so. You do to. Think about it: those individuals with slightly better adaptations, according to the theory, would get more food, be healthier, live longer and, most importantly, have more mates. As time progresses, traits become more obvious, therefore later generations will be more defined and, possibly after thousands of generations, form a new species.
Quick, picture five people you can’t stand to be around and apply that thought process. It’s depressing; but as with most things, it can get worse. How many of those people are married or on the road to being so? It’s almost overwhelming to think about because that would mean someone like “Dogface or Doorknob,” ghosts from office space past, who are as unfortunate-looking as they are ferociously annoying, haven’t been weeded out by now. Both are married and as such, far more along their way to premeditated reproduction than chronically-single Venn ever will be. They fit into the theory, and are therefore the stronger majority, making me, the one with a personality and sartorial awareness past 1994, the weaker minority who will eventually become as extinct as the dodo bird. On so many levels, I can not accept this.
How is it that micromanaging freaks have survived so long? Shouldn’t they have been wiped out in some sort of collective mutinous effort by now? Does it mean the ability to micromanage is a favorable trait, or simply that there are enough people out there, sans backbones, putting up with that crap? I realize the office is not like a dull date, bad movie or some other adverse situation from which you can easily remove yourself. You have to see these people over and over again, day after day. However, coming from someone who had three W2’s in 2006, I clearly don’t stick around and wait for things to improve. I just agency hop or seek out more enticing employment at beer pong tournaments.
Office martyrs, holier-than-thou-attitudes and certain aspects of a dress code (at least in this industry) also cause me to raise a brow. I can’t walk around in designer denim or my Manolo flops on a Thursday, but someone who is plainly, morbidly obese sporting glorified black sweats, is ready to take on the world?
Enter evolution of the mind, and a whole lot of stereotyping. I brought all of this up to a coworker (and co-creator of officepwned.com – coming soon). He suggested "ugly” people don’t have to worry about being liked or superficial things traditionally "pretty" people think about, or are stereotyped as thinking about. Instead, those who are less attractive focus on getting ahead in being smart and practical, assuming that handsome people are stupid for working at what seems like a less practical survival tool. He then asked me, would I rather be ugly and always exceed everybody’s expectations (no), because that would cause a shift in the paradigm. Unsightly would become attractive and the whole cycle would start over. Just look at what was considered beauty in the past; those people would be measured as sub-par by today’s beauty standards.
From that I have two takeaways. First, so long as people who could compete on “The Biggest Loser” roam the halls in sweats, someone with a healthy BMI should be allowed in denim. Second, it’s less surprising that the freaks have found each other and paired off, leaving us normal people in the minority. I don’t mean that all married people are freaks by any means; I adore my married friends for so many reasons, one of which is that they give great hope for balance. I’m referring to my office freaks: “Doorknob and Dogface.” Also, labeling myself as normal is dangerous (and far from the truth). Normal pigeonholes you into a corner, held up to performing by the standards of others.
Perhaps D&D are married because they found what they are looking for a long time ago. Maybe I’m not because I have prioritized goals for myself. I could probably fool some unfortunate schmuck into changing that if I made it my purpose to do so… and stopped being controlling… and learned how to compromise. Not really interested, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Part of what might make us both interesting and successful could be the very fact that we don’t compromise, especially in this industry.
Back to D&D. It’s entirely possible they act they way they do because the office is their only outlet for that sort of behavior. What if “Doorknob” is married to a jerk of a control freak and she backs down to him all the time at home? Office space is her safe place to micromanage subordinates and be in complete control of a situation. People extend their experiences across all aspect of their lives in order to create equilibrium. When the person at hand loses control in one part of their life, they might go beyond an appropriate limit in another, attempting to feel in control and maintain that equilibrium. Instincts are still very strong in humans no matter their environment. Unlike animals, we have the capacity to step back, breathe and asses the situation. We should remember that before making our coworkers lives hell, and their accountants deal with 3 different W2’s in April. However, if I’m wrong and micromanagers Doorknob, Dogface and their respective husbands are the ones taking over and forming a new species, then I’m going to need to elevate my alcohol intake to that upper 2% to tolerate coexistence until expiration and extinction.
Don’t be fooled by the pearls.
VENN
I recently took an online quiz that told me 98% of all women in the United States drink less than me. I wasn’t terribly concerned as I answered NO to the question, “Do you ever have a drink when you wake up in the morning to take the edge off?” Technically it’s true. I can’t help it that tailgates start early, or Essex has a 3-drink brunch special on the weekend. It’s not like I’m making a Jack & Coke roadie on the way into the office every morning. Anyhow, 2% of all women in the US is a decent number. At least it didn’t say something like, “Legs is back in college, Bizz can out-drink you in a head to head competition, and Tink had a hell of a weekend, but you should probably still go ahead and find an AA meeting to crash.”
On a daily basis we brave the elements around us. Be it our climate in crisis, less than desirable social situations, chilly rain drops crippling tri-state transit and causing Lexington Avenue to explode, working with crazies, or wildlife invading our homes (a pigeon flew into our apartment and dive-bombed my roommate in the shower a few months ago). We have to put our best foot forward to deal, get past it, and go get some Clorox to disinfect the hell out of it. This is survival of the fittest.
What I think it all boils down to, is that Darwin and his little theory of natural selection are wrong, at least to some extent… at least I hope so. You do to. Think about it: those individuals with slightly better adaptations, according to the theory, would get more food, be healthier, live longer and, most importantly, have more mates. As time progresses, traits become more obvious, therefore later generations will be more defined and, possibly after thousands of generations, form a new species.
Quick, picture five people you can’t stand to be around and apply that thought process. It’s depressing; but as with most things, it can get worse. How many of those people are married or on the road to being so? It’s almost overwhelming to think about because that would mean someone like “Dogface or Doorknob,” ghosts from office space past, who are as unfortunate-looking as they are ferociously annoying, haven’t been weeded out by now. Both are married and as such, far more along their way to premeditated reproduction than chronically-single Venn ever will be. They fit into the theory, and are therefore the stronger majority, making me, the one with a personality and sartorial awareness past 1994, the weaker minority who will eventually become as extinct as the dodo bird. On so many levels, I can not accept this.
How is it that micromanaging freaks have survived so long? Shouldn’t they have been wiped out in some sort of collective mutinous effort by now? Does it mean the ability to micromanage is a favorable trait, or simply that there are enough people out there, sans backbones, putting up with that crap? I realize the office is not like a dull date, bad movie or some other adverse situation from which you can easily remove yourself. You have to see these people over and over again, day after day. However, coming from someone who had three W2’s in 2006, I clearly don’t stick around and wait for things to improve. I just agency hop or seek out more enticing employment at beer pong tournaments.
Office martyrs, holier-than-thou-attitudes
Enter evolution of the mind, and a whole lot of stereotyping. I brought all of this up to a coworker (and co-creator of officepwned.com – coming soon). He suggested "ugly” people don’t have to worry about being liked or superficial things traditionally "pretty" people think about, or are stereotyped as thinking about. Instead, those who are less attractive focus on getting ahead in being smart and practical, assuming that handsome people are stupid for working at what seems like a less practical survival tool. He then asked me, would I rather be ugly and always exceed everybody’s expectations (no), because that would cause a shift in the paradigm. Unsightly would become attractive and the whole cycle would start over. Just look at what was considered beauty in the past; those people would be measured as sub-par by today’s beauty standards.
From that I have two takeaways. First, so long as people who could compete on “The Biggest Loser” roam the halls in sweats, someone with a healthy BMI should be allowed in denim. Second, it’s less surprising that the freaks have found each other and paired off, leaving us normal people in the minority. I don’t mean that all married people are freaks by any means; I adore my married friends for so many reasons, one of which is that they give great hope for balance. I’m referring to my office freaks: “Doorknob and Dogface.” Also, labeling myself as normal is dangerous (and far from the truth). Normal pigeonholes you into a corner, held up to performing by the standards of others.
Perhaps D&D are married because they found what they are looking for a long time ago. Maybe I’m not because I have prioritized goals for myself. I could probably fool some unfortunate schmuck into changing that if I made it my purpose to do so… and stopped being controlling… and learned how to compromise. Not really interested, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Part of what might make us both interesting and successful could be the very fact that we don’t compromise, especially in this industry.
Back to D&D. It’s entirely possible they act they way they do because the office is their only outlet for that sort of behavior. What if “Doorknob” is married to a jerk of a control freak and she backs down to him all the time at home? Office space is her safe place to micromanage subordinates and be in complete control of a situation. People extend their experiences across all aspect of their lives in order to create equilibrium. When the person at hand loses control in one part of their life, they might go beyond an appropriate limit in another, attempting to feel in control and maintain that equilibrium. Instincts are still very strong in humans no matter their environment. Unlike animals, we have the capacity to step back, breathe and asses the situation. We should remember that before making our coworkers lives hell, and their accountants deal with 3 different W2’s in April. However, if I’m wrong and micromanagers Doorknob, Dogface and their respective husbands are the ones taking over and forming a new species, then I’m going to need to elevate my alcohol intake to that upper 2% to tolerate coexistence until expiration and extinction.
Don’t be fooled by the pearls.
VENN
