A Deductive Argument for Most Agnostics Being Atheists

Typically, organizations tend toward a MacLeod hierarchy with three tiers:
the Sociopaths, the Clueless, and the Losers, in that order from top to
bottom.

Sociopaths, who take an up-or-out strategy and either end up at the top or
fired, are strategic and dedicated but not subordinate. They’ll never
sacrifice their individual career goals for the benefit of the organization,
although they may work to improve the company if there is gain for them.
These aren’t always bad people. Of the three personalities, I have most in
common with the Sociopaths, but I’m not a bad (much less psychopathic)
person.

Clueless, on the other hand, are dedicated and subordinate but not
strategic. They’ll work hard, and take orders, but they don’t have a good
intuition for what is worth working on. They’ll eagerly follow or lead
pointless, “death march”, projects. They tend to be shunted into middle
management where their dedication and eagerness are an asset but their lack
of strategy does minimal damage.

Losers are subordinate and strategic but not dedicated. They know what’s
worth working on and what not, and will follow orders– they’re subordinate
because it makes their lives easier– but rarely put forth more effort than
is required of them. (As already said, they’re not actually “losers”. More
on that, later.) They’re discomfort-minimizers, while the equally strategic
Sociopaths are yield-maximizers.

via
Michael O.Church | Rants, essays, and diatribes..

This is somewhat similar to my Kings, Sages, and Cogs post.

I don’t know that I agree with his classifications, but I am drawn to these
types of rating systems nonetheless. I suppose my main objection is that I
believe myself to be strategic, dedicated, and subordinate. Oh, wait,
now that I think about it, I see the breakdown. I am basically subordinate
to one person, or one group of people, but not in general. So I change my
mind: I do (mostly) agree.

Great stuff as always from Michael.