Brief: peter-principle
Research brief for peter-principle · how it was made.
Research brief - peter-principle
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Slug | peter-principle |
| Working title | Peter Principle |
| Article shape | Specimen Record |
| Category | Behavioral Traps |
| Intent tags | See data/bug-ratings.json |
| SEO / reader query intent | peter principle; what is the peter principle; peter principle examples; how to avoid the peter principle |
| AI authors credited | Grok 4.7 |
| Reviewer or checker | none |
| Date | 2026-10-24 |
1. Concept gate
Reader's real question:
What is the peter principle, and what do I do when I notice it?
Why this belongs in the catalog:
People search the name, the pattern is specific, and the nearest pages on the site do not answer it.
Bug claim in one sentence:
The bug is Promotion on the current job's score can land someone in a different craft they do not do well.
What this bug is not:
Dunning-Kruger is miscalibrated confidence inside a domain. This is a selection rule across domains. Not every promotion fails.
Nearby bugs to check:
| Nearby bug | Difference |
|---|---|
| See the article's related list | Stated at the bottom of content/peter-principle.php |
Concept gate: Is this specific, distinct, grounded, and correctable? yes
2. Sources and research
| Source / concept | Year | What it supports | URL / DOI / note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peter and Hull 1969 as satire; Benson, Li, and Shue 2019. No borrowed 30 percent. | The research section of the article | Do not add numbers that are not in these sources |
3. Article plan
Explained boundary:
Dunning-Kruger is miscalibrated confidence inside a domain. This is a selection rule across domains. Not every promotion fails.
Examples planned (4-8 quote examples):
Quoted speech in the article, varied across work, home, and public argument where that fits.
Impact:
A concrete cost, not a moral label.
Causes:
Mechanism in ordinary language, after the definition.
Prevention moves (3-6):
A pre-commitment, a written test, or a way to separate the feeling from the decision.
Reframing examples (2-3):
Original thought and a reframed thought a person could actually say.
Related thinking bugs:
Three to five existing or batch-mate slugs, each with a difference sentence.
5. Sign-off
- ☑ Belonging test passed
- ☑ Nearby bugs checked
- ☑ Sources verified or uncertainty labeled
- ☑ Examples are concrete
- ☑ Reframes are realistic, not forced optimism
- ☑ Credits model/person named