Hacker News Reader

Comment by rebeccaskinner | Hacker News Reader

I learned this the hard way not too long ago when someone informed me that a number of people I'd worked with who I'd thought of as friends just really disliked me. It hit hard at first because I thought of them as friends- 'work friends' at the very least, and made me start questioning other people that I thought of as friends.

After letting my mind spin in a tight loop about it for a while I decided that really it doesn't matter that much, because I'm happier liking people, and I can like someone and be friendly even irrespective of if they like me or not. Of course I'm not going to push my company on people who are clear that they don't want it, but it doesn't really do any good to second guess who actually cares for me and who is being polite.

View on HN

It can get weirder, when you are talking third party conversations. Alice considers Bob a friend, Bob tells Charles that he dislikes Alice because he needs something from Charles and Charles has expressed dislike for Alice.

Charles then tells Alice that Bob dislikes her which surprises Alice. (and is not actually the truth)

I got an opportunity to research workplace relations in depth and one of the courses cautioned about third party information for exactly this reason. They had surveyed several people and their supervisors about whether they "approved" or "disapproved" of one of their peers. When the survey was completely anonymous they got one answer but when the survey was said to be for their supervisor, the results skewed toward the supervisor's biases. The inference was that if a person's supervisor dislikes someone, the people they supervise are more likely to say they dislike that person to, regardless of their actual feelings. It can be seen as a loyalty reflex, or kissing up, it doesn't really matter, but if some supervisor tells you the people that work for them dislike you, the only information that offers is that the supervisor person dislikes you.

I think it's important to distinguish between the supervisor saying that one person dislikes you and could you please change X, Y, and Z behavior to get along with them, vs. them saying that everybody dislikes you and please stay away from their team. The former likely is a problem with either you or that one person (or both). The latter is a problem between you and the supervisor.

Remember that it's a supervisor's job to take the bullet for members of their team, so if someone on their team really does have a problem with you but doesn't like dealing with conflict, it's their duty to raise it with you.

I feel like this also dovetails with the advice that "If somebody hates you, it's probably a problem with them. If everybody hates you, it's probably a problem with you." Not exactly the same situation - in this case, if everybody talking to a person hates you, it's probably a problem with that person - but in both cases, you get very useful information out of the specificity of the complaint.

That is a really valid point. I remember back in middle school that was the "big" insult, "Hey, everybody hates you!" which really meant the person insulting you had a problem with you.

> and is not actually the truth

Is there any "truth" about such things? Maybe I get sociopathic when I get philosophical, but it seems to me that my opinion of people is entirely due to who I'm around at the time, and "the person by themselves" is just one such group. There's no "there" there, under the set of masks; I don't really have any opinion on people when I'm on my own.

> I'm happier liking people, and I can like someone and be friendly even irrespective of if they like me or not.

That is extremely mature, and shows great perception of the complications of our perceptions and social interactions. Congratulations on reaching that conclusion.

Ina semi related note, I try to keep my distance with coworkers. The added factor of work responsabilities and possible conflics would be harder to manage with a friendship or more added to the equations.

But I tend to compartmentalize my relationships, so there's that.

I don't even try to keep my distance with coworkers. but I honestly couldn't even tell you if I liked or disliked a coworker until after I have left the job and reflected back on it. What I know is if they are incompetent/skilled, lazy/hardworking/overworking, whether they understand directions, whether they are direct communicators or bullshitters, whether they are kiss-asses/groupthinkers or generous with credit/willing to go to bat for correctness.

It's honestly all I think about at work - how to get the job done. When somebody tries to connect with me on a personal level, I feel like we're wasting time and that I'd rather be having this conversation with the job already done, at home, with somebody I already have a relationship with but can never find enough time for because I'm always at this stupid job helping chisel money out of suckers for scum.

I've never managed to make friends with a co-worker at the time I was working with them. I've become friends with several after working together, though. It's so irritating when somebody tries to be friendly at the job (unless we're waiting on something that can't be hurried - I've had friendly conversations that sprang from shared frustration) that I don't find it friendly.

It's important to live up to my username periodically, but I'm actually being honest here and not baiting. I'm pleased with everyone at work who does their job moderately well, and I'm nice to everyone who isn't selfish in a way that other people have to take on extra work to enable their laziness (even if those non-selfish people are incompetent.)

It's so irritating when somebody tries to be friendly at the job

Wow, really? You honestly find it irritating when someone perceives you might have a mutual interest in something only tangentially related to work, so strikes up a conversation with you? Or someone likes the cut of your jib when they first meet you and suggests you walk across the road to the sandwich place together? Or offers to grab you an espresso whilst they're getting theirs? You find all of that... irritating?

Read his post closer, he hates people bullshitting when there's work to be done.

The tone of the post leads me to feel like there is incipient burnout

If so, I was burnt out on the first day of my first job 25 years ago.

I identify heavily with this statement. Then again, executive function disorder.

If we could be working, yes. I don't want to be at work, and we're extending it by talking about the cut of my jib. I dislike work so much that they have to pay me or I wouldn't even come in.

edit: to be a little clearer - when it comes to coworkers, I mistake how pleased I am with how they do their jobs with whether I like them or not. In real life, I would actually like many of the people who were horrible at their jobs and dislike some of the people who made me happiest with their work.

edit 2: I don't even like working with people who are already my friends unless they can find a way to let it go at the job. All things being equal, I'd prefer to work with a stranger.

This happened to me. I think on some intellectual level I understood that work friendship wasn't terribly authentic and based on the politics of getting ahead. Then I was on the receiving end of some very dishonest politics and it really opened my eyes on how terrible some/many of the people here are and people I've had unbelievably good relationships with will turn on you in a very aggressive manner instantly if they think picking the other side will gain them more benefits. Fairness, truth, etc didn't matter to them. Holy cow, I just couldn't believe it.

Ironically, this has made me appreciate the people who are openly jerky at work. At least they're open with the biases. There's probably something to be said about white collar workplace culture's default of "aren't we all just friends and teammates?" It seems to empower only the worst political players. At this point, I'd probably rather work with a bunch of jerks who are open with their biases than a bunch of 'office friendly' people who are only friendly because it serves them. There's a certain level of honesty with the jerks.

I also see this in myself. I've learned how to play up false modesty and the whole "Aren't we just pals" attitude, and I don't like it now that I'm self-aware of it. I don't know if I'm ready to become an full-on office jerk, but I'm probably half-way there now and life seems a lot easier when you're more open with your biases and honestly accept that most of your coworkers are adversaries, not teammates. I'm sure I'm more disliked, but disliked by people who would just turn on me anyway if push came to shove. I also invest much less mental energy into trying to be everyone's buddy and instead focus that on the work itself, anti-burn out strategies, leisure time, my creative projects, planning my next career move, etc.

I used to laugh at the grumpy gray-beards in IT. Now I see where they are coming from. The sooner the automation/robot revolution comes the better. Work is a zero-sum game that best serves the extremely dishonest. I don't know why we're so worried about moving into a post-work and post-scarcity society. The status quo is pretty terrible if we're being honest about it.

> white collar workplace culture's default of "aren't we all just friends and teammates?"

This isn't a white-collar thing; it's specifically a SV/startup culture thing, and one of the reasons why I no longer desire to work in that kind of environment. Grownups don't have to be, or pretend to be, friends with each other, in order to work well together.

> At this point, I'd probably rather work with a bunch of jerks who are open with their biases than a bunch of 'office friendly' people who are only friendly because it serves them.

That-guy-who-shouldn't-be-mentioned-on-HN would say that this is us tearing one-another down by refusing to get good at politics as a class, making us subservient to a management class that doesn't really do much well beyond being really good at playing politics. "Meritocracy" is only possible if the smartest people are willing to build and use political capital. Control won't be given freely from without.

I think maybe you had just one non-friend - the one that told you that caustic lie. Just a thought.

That is the parsimonious conclusion.

I'm unclear as to what you mean by parsimonious.

Requiring the fewest or simplest assumptions. Specifically: Either the statement is true, and a lot of people you've regarded as friendly acquaintances in fact wish you ill, or the statement is false, and one person (the one making it) wishes you ill, as demonstrated by his having decided to tell you a lie which, if believed, will probably harm at least some of your social relationships within the context. Ceteris paribus, the latter requires fewer assumptions (ill will on the part of one person, rather than of many), and is therefore likelier to be accurate.

This use of the adjective originates in the philosophical concept of "ontological parsimony", which is basically Occam's Razor with lots of the sort of added complexity you generally find in epistemological analysis.

Without knowing the situation, it's reasonable this "non-friend" may have thought they were protecting the original poster. Assuming this person wasn't lying, there is no right answer here. Are you a better friend because you look out for your friend when they're not around and are willing to share a painful truth? Or are you the better friend because you protect your friend's happiness by not telling them?

I tend to take the former approach, but experience has taught the latter works better. Inflicting pain on a friend, even with their best interest at heart, is a good way to lose friends.

I think that this is correct. Even if the person thought that they were correct, they had to have known that saying that would have hurt you. If anything, that person isn't your friend. If the other people chat with you, eat with you, or just otherwise interact with you ... they're your friends. Perhaps they're not close friends, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some level of mutual respect and enjoyment of your company.

> If the other people chat with you, eat with you, or just otherwise interact with you ... they're your friends.

That really doesn't follow. I've had to maintain a pleasant working relationship with folks I've cordially loathed (and I'm certain the feeling was mutual). In every situation, we were friendly, pleasant and worked together well — but at the end of the day, we couldn't stand one another. Sometimes you don't get to choose your colleagues: your only choice is to quit or to continue.

But what if it's a caustic truth?

Seriously, the world isn't all fluffy fuzzy happiness. Sometimes people honestly dislike and even despise one another, but they can still produce good work together. Gilbert & Sullivan are a good example.

Whether it's a caustic lie or a caustic truth, it's still caustic. Either way, what good do you see coming of its revelation in this context?

Put yourself in OP's position: would you rather _not_ know?

Yes.

Edited to expand: I already sandbox my personal and work lives thoroughly, so it's not going to cost me anything of significance beyond the job if I lose the job - not that that's not significant, but it's not my whole life, either. If, to a good first approximation, everyone where I work hates me, then I'm already going to lose the job, because with that many people looking to put a knife in my back, someone is going to succeed.

The odds that knowing this is true will make it possible for me to change it are effectively negligible; on the one hand, if everyone where I work hates me because of my own behavior, I'm not equipped to change anyone's mind, and on the other, if everyone where I work hates me because of something that isn't actually under my control, everyone where I work still hates me and I'm literally the last person in the world who's going to be able to do anything about that. Either way, I'm screwed in a way that foreknowledge isn't going to do anything to help; the best that'll happen if I find out ahead of time is nothing, and the worst is that I'll make my situation even worse. So where's the benefit in being told?

> Either way, what good do you see coming of its revelation in this context?

Either OP changes his behaviour to better-please his colleagues, thereby improving their work dynamic, or he cuts them, thereby improving his circumstances. Without accurate information, he's unable to make an informed decision.

That depends on whether or not you believe a painful truth is better than a pleasant lie.

I personally believe truth to be more important than happiness, and I would want to know the truth even if it made me unhappy. Other people might prefer happiness to truth, which is fine, but that's not what I would choose for myself.

When there's an economic advantage to be gained, people at work can be fake. You can either get bummed out about that, or accept it as their issue and not yours. I found that if I treat people like friends (and having good intent) it usually works out for the best, though I've been backstabbed here and there.

And when you're backstabbed some times, you can choose to get less and less receptive, ore simple develop your resilience. In the long run people will know that you're agood worker.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com