TIL about the concept of Weaponized Incompetence, which probably explains every issue you ever faced in a bureaucracy

It's a very common dark pattern. But I think weaponized incompetence is more contextually appropriate in a relationship where two people are supposedly cooperating.

In a bureaucracy, I would just call it bureaucratic friction. The complaints department is only open the first Wednesday of the month from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. that kind of thing

Or there was a class action lawsuit, register here via mail handwritten letter, and we will mail you a check for your $0.20 rebate. It's very competent, it's not pretending not to to be competent, they're just putting up enough barriers that barely anybody would do it, and even if they do do it they probably will forget about it, or fill it in correctly. Adding lots of friction

Or you can sign up for a subscription service with a credit card online, but to cancel it, you have to call, or visit the office, or write a real letter. That's very competent. They're not pretending they can't do it. They just won't do it. Dark pattern right there. Corporate friction

The funny thing is that nobody seems to see the most problematic connection:

Companies „manage expectations“ (do the exact same but use a fancy name)

Intelligent people with lack of morals mimic this behavior and rise to the top

These new CEOs further this trend.

Now every other person does it too (obviously not everyone).

People start to become sick from exhaustion, commit suicide because the world is getting more and more ruthless.

Everyone excuses it as „thats just capitalism“ or „you just need to grow a thicker skin“.

Thats why people freak out and commit acts of terrorism, because others could not care less about their daily suffering.

We need compassion, folks.

I was genuinely taken aback at how much the article focused on interpersonal relationships and gender. I am much more familiar with the concept in bureaucracy the way the post teased it.

I think it’s more commonly found in domestic relationships as well. It’s probably most often used to just avoid housework, such as laundry or dishes and other things that men see as “beneath them” (hint: it’s not). Or in the case of people supporting the entire household, it’s not seen as a fair division of labor to also do housework. If one is doing all the work outside the home or paying the overwhelming majority of the household bills, why should one be doing housework too? What responsibilities does the other partner have? So one just F’s up basic jobs and soon the other partner takes over out of frustration.

It can also be seen as the male equivalent of withholding sex when partners are in conflict. For women, withholding sex is commonly used as a form of punishment in relationships to show displeasure at a man’s behavior. It’s denying their bodies to men, which they have every right to do, it’s their bodies their choice, sex should be consensual. For men however, that specific tactic is almost meaningless in many cases (there’s always exceptions to be sure), as women, on average, tend to have a higher tolerance for forgoing sex than men do.

Enter weaponized incompetence. Men are typically relied on to do most of the “grunt” work and many repair jobs around the household, their bodies are used to affect change on their environment. So if they simply withhold their own bodies to be used to repair or move heavy objects or whatever, that’s also their prerogative and it can bring a household to a halt. Nobody can force you to fix an electrical outlet or change a flat tire or repair a washer/dryer or whatever else men are relied on for. Men can simply deny the use of their bodies for basic things that everyone else takes for granted, it’s their bodies their choice, labor should be consensual.

Every? Oh my no, there's plenty of ways that bureaucracy comes to a grinding halt.

I just call it "corporate culture."