Sunday, January 24, 2010

How To Not Get That Job

Criterion 1  Understanding of Centrelink’s strategic environment.
  • This criterion includes the ability to:
  • understand the relationship between Centrelink and government
  • apply sound research, interpretation and problem solving skills
  • demonstrate the ability to think strategically and make balanced, well informed decisions in relation to own work area
  • demonstrate the capacity for originality of thought.

Centrelink’s strategic environment is somewhat akin to how Custer felt at the last stand: fighting furiously with ever diminishing ammunition and a leader so wobbly on his feet he makes jelly look like a paragon of stability. The illustrious leader of Centrelink is bedeviled by a host of conflicting priorities that makes Turing’s Halting Problem in computing look like a preschool exercise in arithmetic.

“Sound research” is an oxymoron deserving of such acclaimed oxymorons as “military intelligence”, “creative bureaucracy”, “hard decisions made by politicians”, "caring conservative", "smart leftie", “post modernist thinking”, "scientifically proven". I know this because there is barely a day goes by that I am not perusing some stupid research news about another “breakthrough” when my memory is screaming at me: that was done x years ago these researchers don’t have memories that is the price you pay for experimenting and writing so much that you never engage in hard thinking. The only hard thing in parliament is the skulls which remain impenetrable to common sense let alone logic and wisdom.

Problem solving skills are all but absent in humans for as that philosopher of renown, Bertrand Russell, once quipped, “the first problem in philosophy is recognising that a problem exists in the first place.” Most people do not realise that the problem is the way they think which is not thinking but simply a complicated or not so complicated set of responses that has little to no resemblence to logic as understood by .000000363* of the population. Nonetheless problem solving is easily resolved with the Bart Simpson defence,”I didn’t do it.” This defence is typically employed by politicians who generally have the intellectual capacity of a dead gnat. I am not sure who is the intellectual superior here, Russell, or was foolish enough to enter into an enterprise with David Hilbert to prove that mathematics is a fully self contained axiomatic system that requires no external referents, said dream demolished by one obsessive compulsive character by the name Godel, or Bart Simpson. For as a friend once advised me: a colleague of his once created an IQ test wherein street smart kids did better than book smart kids.

To think strategically is primarily to think about how to blame someone else for the problems you have created. Politicians excel in this facility and I am surprised there is no Nobel Prize for it because it ranks amongst the most outstanding achievements of human cognition. God proved this when he blamed Eve for that little episode in the garden. We should learn from God that the hallmark of strategic thinking is to always make sure you have a scapegoat to hand.

Originality of thought is complete bollocks. It doesn’t exist. For as Margaret Boden writes in her wonderful tome, “The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms”: there is “historical creativity” and “personal creativity”, the former is so rare that one must seriously consider proposition put forward by some physicists that Time does not exist which is admittedly consistent with the Einsteinian view of the universe but then he didn’t accept Quantum Mechanics what a doofus. I cannot recall the last time I ever encountered a person demonstrating originality of thought. Of course this may reflect a failure of memory on my part. Elizabeth Loftus be damned my memory does not fail except when I forget, confabulate, or just lie through my teeth. That latter explanation is much more common than most realise, it took me 40 years of living to realise that people often throw out words and concepts of which they have little  understanding. As evidenced in this missive I have mastered that facility. Despite the sage like advice: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the simple truth, and by golly for a simpleton like me simplicity is the hallmark of truth, the fact remains that originality of thought is best conceived of in the following fashion:

  •  Reading is evidence of ignorance. Writing proves it.
  •  If something makes so much sense to you that you cannot understand why others have not thought of it before one of three possibilities exist:
  • someone has, you just haven't read enough.
  • someone has, and they know why its a stupid idea.
  •  no-one has, see a psychiatrist.

  • If, and we all do occasionally, you need to sound like you know what you're talking about when pondering the great mysteries, quantum-mechanically indeterminately chaotically insert the words, quantum, Einstein, Heisenberg et al, indeterminacy, chaos, and consciousness, into your dialogue.
  • If the truth sets you free its a lie.
  • If you could roll the universe into a theory you wouldn't exist.
  • "At times I even persuade myself that I can glimpse some of the answers, but this is a common delusion experienced by anyone who dwells too long on a single problem." (Frances Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis)

What is astonishing is that people think they can think original thoughts.



Criterion 2  Achieves results.

This criterion includes the ability to:
  • identify and achieve work objectives
  • adapt to changing priorities
  • seek assistance from others
  • check regularly on own work progress.

The best way to achieve results is by stealing your workmate’s results. For advice on how to achieve work objectives consider the case of Noah, who managed to con his whole family to build this whooping great boat and then blame Cain’s descendants for the leaks.

Academics excel in achieving results by stealing other people’s results and claiming they thought of it all along. This is even much more true of philosophers, who as Karl Popper, that so called philosopher of science(now there’s an oxymoron that is up there with “psychoanalysis has proven that autism is caused by distant mothering”, “science is just another belief system”  a statement of complete idiocy that is comparable to the idea of “originality of thought”, “mental illness is a social construct”, “I think  therefore I am” - which pretty much explains why the French don’t exist), once said, The reason most philosophers are depressed is because they realise they have nothing useful to contribute”. So how come Popper never popped himself? This can be explained by the most sagacious line ever uttered in a Hollywood movie: You can go without sex for a week but can you go for a week without a rationalisation.” Well, that depends on your definition of the concept “week” doesn’t it?

The best way to adapt to changing priorities is to imagine nothing has changed. After all, the whole world is an illusion so why not imagine that priorities are super illusions? Being an overweening solipsist I cannot seek assistance from others for that would be to presume that others exist which would mean my solipsism is incorrect which would mean my thinking is in error which would mean I AM no longer who I thought I was therefore I AM NOT but I must be which means I must be a solipsist for I presuppose that I AM and others ARE NOT but they are. This cacophony of contradictions is what once led me to entertain the fanciful idea of constructing an epistemology of contradiction. Unfortunately evidence indicates that an epistemology of contradiction has already been created and is called “Freedom of speech”. If there is anything that is free about human behavior it is confined to 49% of the population and dangles between their legs. When BF Skinner wrote, “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” he was either psychotic or brilliant because there never has been freedom.

Never check on your own work progress until you have obtained a 6 month supply of Prozac. If you must check on your own work progress I heartily recommend the following heuristic: 1+1 = 1,000. If you are challenged about your own work progress the following rebuttals have value:

  • Sartre told me there are no absolutes so who are you to judge?
  • I’m too busy now to check on my work progress, come back next week.
  • I’m a Hindu, time is circular so the concept of progress is absurd. Respect my culture!


Criterion 3  Cultivates productive working relationships.
This criterion includes the ability to:
  • work effectively with others to maximise services to stakeholders
  • work as part of a team to deliver results
  • understand and value diversity.

The best way to cultivate working relationships is to pile on the bullshit so deep that you convince your work mates that their delusions of grandeur are not delusions at all but empirically verifiable realities which transcend the vagaries of human cognition to such an extent that Godel must have been wrong because it is bloody obvious we really are a wonderfully intelligent and sagacious group of people as this bloke said so and we knew it was true all along. That is the fundamental tenet of motivational psychology. The most motivational thing about most of modern psychology is its capacity to alleviate constipation. So if you have ever wondered why Anthony Robbins is so tall the answer is simple: he has to store all that bullshit somewhere.

As noted in “The Office”, there may be no “I” in team but there is a “ME”. It is, of course, a broken “ME” in that the letters are scattered, which makes it a perfect representation of TEAM, which is typically about a group of people blaming each other for their respective failures while proclaiming their own divine right to admiration and simultaneously planning the knifing of anyone who would challenge their superior contribution to the TEAM because it is ME that is actually keeping this slipshod TEAM together and if it were  not for ME the TEAM would simply be MEAT .

Diversity must be valued in the same way money is valued. I value my 5 dollar notes but not as much as I value my 10 dollar notes. The same is true with people, I value them to the extent I can attribute to them blame for my failures or can claim credit for their achievements. To this end I strongly promote the inclusion of peoples from cultures that instil submissiveness and a strong reluctance to challenge authority. I very much value that diversity because it means the “ME” in team is much more important than the “AT”. I AM ME, they are AT, altogether we equal MEAT, therefore while I AM MEAT  I AM a cut above the rest of the MEAT.


Criterion 4  Exemplifies personal drive and integrity.
This criterion includes the ability to:
  • adhere to and promote the APS values
  • demonstrate behaviours consistent with the APS Code of Conduct
  • demonstrate resilience under difficult circumstances.

The APS values are inherently fascistic in that these values presuppose that all individuals are capable of meeting these standards when every doofus who has studied stats knows that there is this concept called a normal distribution which is an example of mathematical fascism in that a normal distribution is only normal with respect to a normal population but a normal population is a fascistic concept ipso facto the APS values promote fascism this being consistent with the fact that the APS values were created by bureaucrats who are most certainly not representative of the general population. Thus, in order to adhere to the APS values I recommend you learn the Goose Step, wear a brown shirt, and unceasingly pummel into submission anyone who does not adhere to the APS values.

Accordingly the best way to demonstrate behaviors consistent with the APS Code of Conduct is to attack anyone from a culture which does not generate submissive individuals who will not challenge authority.

As constantly beating people into MEAT is a pre condition for TEAMS resilience is best demonstrated by the ability to keep on beating on until one has created enough MEAT to form another TEAM.



Criterion 5  Communicates with influence.      
This criterion includes the ability to:·

  •    demonstrate well developed oral and written communication skills
  •    listen actively to others and respond appropriately
  •     put forward ideas and consider and encourage the views of others. 

The best way to communicate with influence is to carry a very large bat by which one can beat into MEAT anyone who disagrees with you. It is very important to actively listen because otherwise you cannot ascertain whether or not the individual you are beating into MEAT is ready to join a TEAM. The only ideas you should put forward are the ideas of your superiors otherwise you might be beaten into MEAT or expelled from the TEAM; the latter consequence will unquestionably involve you being beaten into MEAT yet again because you must then join another TEAM for as Martin Buber, that liberal theologian who could not believe in God and made a living pretending to believe in God, once stated: “Without Thou I do not exist”. The only views of others that should be encouraged are those which promote ME over the TEAM so demonstrating for all and sundry that without ME that TEAM is simply a preposition without a subject and therefore little better than MEAT.




People like you
Find it easy
Aching to see
Walking on air.
Hunting by the rivers through the streets every corner
Abandoned too soon
Set down with due care
Don't walk away
In silence
Don't walk away ...

Last stanza, Atmosphere, Joy Division, 1981

3 comments:

Buddhist Monkey said...

Is it just me... or is there something innately sexy about an impressive intellect applied dilligently in a most unproductive manner purely for one's own entertainment? What a fascinating character; I want to know you.

viagra online said...

This is something rare because I'd say the opposite because most of us wanted to get the perfect job but I CAN tell this is other thing.

xlpharmacy said...

It is very curious what is in the post but each with their own perspective but no one likes