I agree I used the word substantially more expansively than some other people use it. That's why I defined it in the beginning so people can understand the local scoping of the relevant word! :)
(That said "salespeople" are in the middle layer under your definition as well)
The other term I was thinking of using for this post was "bullshit jobs." So titling my post "bullshit jobs are real jobs" but I didn't want to fight against the motte-and-bailey of specific jobs being possibly bullshit jobs.
("coordinators" presumed the conclusion too much and also points to a specific thing )
Middlemen are brokers, intermediaries.
Almost every job is in the middle of something including the ones labeled “real” - e.g. manufacturing uses some things to produce others.
Some of the jobs you refer to as middle, are not actually middle - e.g. accounting.
You probably wanted to refer to white collar jobs or maybe just services.
Middleman are not what you think and your argument sounds off from the bat just because you use that word.
I think many people have some intuition that work can be separated between “real work“ (farming, say, or building trains) and “middlemen” (e.g. accounting, salespeople, lawyers, bureaucrats, DEI strategists). “Bullshit jobs” by David Graeber is a more intellectualized framing of the same intuition. Many people believe that middlemen are entirely useless, and we can get rid of (almost) all middleman jobs, RETVRN to people doing real work, and society would be much better off.
Like many populist intuitions, this intuition is completely backwards. Middlemen are extremely important! Coordination problems are real problems, and the bottlenecks to global wealth and flourishing.
These examples are not good, almost none of those are what most people would call middlemen. A perfect example of an actual middleman would be the type of hustle grindset loser who sets up an Amazon store that sells merchandise from Alibaba at steep price hikes while contributing nothing to the product or its delivery. That’s a middle man.
> A merchant a) physically moves wheat to where it’s scarce (and valued more), b) physically moves beans to where it’s scarce (and valued more), c) figures out an exchange rate, and d) takes on risks of spoilage and banditry. For her efforts, the merchant takes a fractional cut.
This is not a middle man, this is logistics! An entire segment of the global economy, and not a small one!
> Ten people want to build a bridge. But they face problems: Who works on the foundation vs. the supports? How do we prevent the left side team from building something incompatible with the right side team? When is the foundation strong enough to start building on top? How do we know if we’re on track or behind schedule?
This is project management, also not a middle man!
Like I get nobody likes being criticized but dude, your entire post is resting on a bad foundation. If you start off an article about cars talking about how jetskis are the future of highway transportation, I'm not gonna take that seriously either, because you fumbled it on the starting line.
It isn't clear enough, though. Your argument is actually seriously muddled by your choice to redefine the common usage of a word to your own usage. The viability of your title flips depending on whether one adopts your definition or the common definition.
I think many readers have a hard time letting go of whatever expectation the title created in their mind and then refocusing to try and understand the broader point. Not that I support clickbait titles or poor communication, but I do agree with you that it’s generally more helpful to let go of the semantic details as long as the broader point is understood. But many people choose to get hung up over the words (probably) because of an inability to self soothe the first shock.
If you have suggestions on a better title, please let me know! I tried pretty hard to come up with different ones, giving time constraints, and this was the best one I had. I'm really bad at titles and this is an area of active growth for me :)
If I happen to think of one, I will let you know for sure. Also, remember that on the internet, only those who have an issue with something will make a comment. There is always a vast silent majority of people who would say, “this is actually fine with me and I have no issues with it” if asked. It’s safe to say your title is not bad. There will always be someone for whom it doesn’t work and the internet has a selection bias to give only them a voice.
Edit: while writing my earlier comment, I didn’t realise that you were the author. I did not mean to say your title is clickbait. I was only trying to make a concession to anyone who thought so.
Thank you for your kind words and empathy! I appreciate it. Writing to the void is hard, and while I care a lot about improving and not being wrong, I also appreciate it when people realize that the writer on the other side of the screen is a real person, and deliver their feedback with kindness and empathy.
In which case they're contributing discoverability. Because clearly the buyer didn't discover the original store themselves, but did find it on Amazon.
The problem is the value tends to be ephemeral and single use. Once the connection is established, the parties are better off communicating directly.
That’s why marketplaces like TaskRabbit struggle to generalize and grow. Contracting firms often struggle in similar ways and try to put clauses in their contracts to retain their relevance.
I compiled a list of my favorite intellectual jokes, as well as offer a short treatise on why intellectual jokes aren't just "jokes about smart people"
In xenosociology class we learned about a planet full of people who believe in anti-induction: if the sun has risen every day in the past, then they think it’s very unlikely that it’d rise again.
As a result, these people are all starving and living in poverty. An Earth xenosociologist visits the planet and studies them assiduously for 6 months. At the end of her stay, she asked to be brought to their greatest scientists and philosophers, and poses the question: “Hey, why are you still using this anti-induction philosophy? You’re living in horrible poverty!” The lead philosopher of science looks at her in pity as if she’s a child, and replies:
“Well, it never worked before…”
__
Did you know? The moon landing was staged. It was faked by Stanley Kubrick.
But Kubrick was a perfectionist, so he insisted that they shoot on location.
If you like explorations of the deep impacts of parallel universes which have bridges that lets you transport bits (but not matter), you might enjoy https://brainchip.thecomicseries.com/
I like some of Yudkowsky's shorter fiction but I could never get into HPMOR. The writing style just comes across as too smarmy. I know it's intentional but I still can't get past it (I had trouble with Thomas Covenant) as well.
For this article, I wrote 4000+ words in the first draft and asked AIs to help suggest places where I repeated myself, different sections or other things to cut, etc, so the final article is tightly focused. I tend naturally to be longwinded, and it's helpful to go through iterations of figuring out what to cut in consultation with AI. I also use them to check grammar, typos, and spelling, and whether my points are too complicated (as a rule of thumb, if I didn't explain something well enough for Opus to understand, I assume I need a better explanation for human readers as well). I'm not theoretically opposed to having AIs do the writing but empirically I have not found them useful.
This might be presumptuous of me, but I do not believe current-generation AIs are capable of writing articles of the quality level of my nonfiction writing. I think they have a) lower quality and quantity of overall insight, particular on philosophy-adjacent topics, b) lower ability to be appropriately confident in making claims well[1], and c) noticeably worse ability to "write well", subjectively defined (eg weaker sentences, less deft use of metaphors and references, tries too hard to force a point when there's nothing there, etc).
Honestly I find myself slightly offended by the comparison, though I acknowledge it's one of the things where 2-3 generations down the line AIs might well surpass me at.
I think "blurry jpeg" misses the point, for most practical questions. It conflates substrate and developmental history with emergent capabilities and consequences, and is only one step up from saying "AI is just 1s and 0s"
[1] To be clear this is something I have not mastered, I'm just saying AIs never seem to get this well, though maybe I'm just bad at prompting. In particular there's a particular "internet slop"-style that they go to very quickly, and when I try to prime them away from that they sound fake in a different direction.
It wasn't one of the short stories I reread for the review. I thought he simplified the thermodynamics element to make the story work, but multiple people have corrected me by now. Note the specific wording was "appear to" because I wasn't sure.
