I started reading this with an expectation of disagreeing strongly with it, because (at least in my own head) I detest gossip and consider it pernicious.
But then I reached your comment about (mostly) women who "report that before they consider accepting a job, they find someone they know (or someone who knows someone they know) inside the organisation" - and I realized that I did exactly the same thing: before I accepted my current job, I spoke at length to someone who had previously worked there but had left about his experiences and his reasons for leaving. I didn't think of that as "gossip" ... but I suppose you're right, it was.
So ... I've had to rethink my anti-gossip position! I still believe that there is a huge danger of even truthful gossip being pernicious - in a previous job I experienced that, where I allowed my perceptions of some colleagues to be slanted negatively by things that other colleagues privately reported to me about them, which led to some very bad outcomes. But you're probably right that it can have more positive effects as well.
I had a boss who wanted to ban gossip in the office, which was ridiculous. It's how we bond with each other when you have little other in common than your place of work. Obviously her plan failed and we were subjected to many rants about how much she hated it in meetings. For many people it's what gets them through a job they hate.
Yes! Well put. See also Auden's A Healthy Spot for a defense of the "smoking-room story". The poem agrees with you, I think, even if Auden is talking about a different sort of gossip.
I think the judgement depends entirely on how one defines gossip. The idea that we would NOT discuss others outside their presence and base our decisions solely on personal experience seems insanely ineffective. But the human hyper-sensitivity to reputation makes it not only a somewhat double edged tool but also risks excessive focus on reputation management perhaps to the detriment of both genuine integrity and performance/ effectiveness.
It tends to be seen as adaptive and important for maintaining social bonds (notably, Dunbar sees it as a stage in "social grooming" development, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooming,_Gossip_and_the_Evolution_of_Language) by those who study human socialty, and considering how grossly hypersocial humans are, the usefulness of the information thus passed is likely a factor in addition to just signaling friendliness and in-groupness.
On the other hand: a fascinating idea of a prehistoric "gossip trap" and a suggestion that social media pushed contemporary digital humans back into that hole:
The linked post is half a long account of the "Dawn of Everything" and half the puzzle of "why civilisation took so long to emerge" -- but the relevant section starts around half way down, search for "sapient paradox" to get to the beginning. I'm not sure if it's true, but certainly interesting as an idea.
What do you think of the notion that our current elite is more historically vulnerable to gossip, due to the increased importance of public perception?
I would guess that it is true, but I don't know how it compares to intra-elite gossip in the past, i.e. different things got you "cancelled" before Twitter, but gossip could still be damaging, perhaps in more silent ways. A lot of people can come back from expose online, but in the past did you career just stall and you never knew why?
Gossip and anecdotes are cousins! Or perhaps even siblings. So: can you calculate the worth of gossip? I think you'll come up with my algorithm or something close...
I started reading this with an expectation of disagreeing strongly with it, because (at least in my own head) I detest gossip and consider it pernicious.
But then I reached your comment about (mostly) women who "report that before they consider accepting a job, they find someone they know (or someone who knows someone they know) inside the organisation" - and I realized that I did exactly the same thing: before I accepted my current job, I spoke at length to someone who had previously worked there but had left about his experiences and his reasons for leaving. I didn't think of that as "gossip" ... but I suppose you're right, it was.
So ... I've had to rethink my anti-gossip position! I still believe that there is a huge danger of even truthful gossip being pernicious - in a previous job I experienced that, where I allowed my perceptions of some colleagues to be slanted negatively by things that other colleagues privately reported to me about them, which led to some very bad outcomes. But you're probably right that it can have more positive effects as well.
this is true, but aren't we now talking about whether telling the truth is good, rather than gossip per se?
I had a boss who wanted to ban gossip in the office, which was ridiculous. It's how we bond with each other when you have little other in common than your place of work. Obviously her plan failed and we were subjected to many rants about how much she hated it in meetings. For many people it's what gets them through a job they hate.
Yes! Well put. See also Auden's A Healthy Spot for a defense of the "smoking-room story". The poem agrees with you, I think, even if Auden is talking about a different sort of gossip.
Ignoring by tacit consent our hunger
For eternal life
!!!
This is a curious post. It doesn't sound like you!
How so?
I’m not sure. And I don’t want you to think me critical! I think maybe the short paragraphs, I just felt a bit disconnected from it. Maybe it’s me!
I actually think you are right, was just interested
I think the judgement depends entirely on how one defines gossip. The idea that we would NOT discuss others outside their presence and base our decisions solely on personal experience seems insanely ineffective. But the human hyper-sensitivity to reputation makes it not only a somewhat double edged tool but also risks excessive focus on reputation management perhaps to the detriment of both genuine integrity and performance/ effectiveness.
It tends to be seen as adaptive and important for maintaining social bonds (notably, Dunbar sees it as a stage in "social grooming" development, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooming,_Gossip_and_the_Evolution_of_Language) by those who study human socialty, and considering how grossly hypersocial humans are, the usefulness of the information thus passed is likely a factor in addition to just signaling friendliness and in-groupness.
On the other hand: a fascinating idea of a prehistoric "gossip trap" and a suggestion that social media pushed contemporary digital humans back into that hole:
https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/the-gossip-trap
The linked post is half a long account of the "Dawn of Everything" and half the puzzle of "why civilisation took so long to emerge" -- but the relevant section starts around half way down, search for "sapient paradox" to get to the beginning. I'm not sure if it's true, but certainly interesting as an idea.
What do you think of the notion that our current elite is more historically vulnerable to gossip, due to the increased importance of public perception?
I would guess that it is true, but I don't know how it compares to intra-elite gossip in the past, i.e. different things got you "cancelled" before Twitter, but gossip could still be damaging, perhaps in more silent ways. A lot of people can come back from expose online, but in the past did you career just stall and you never knew why?
Gossip and anecdotes are cousins! Or perhaps even siblings. So: can you calculate the worth of gossip? I think you'll come up with my algorithm or something close...
often they are the same, right?