Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndrewKemendo | Hacker News Reader

Friedman cautioned decades ago that “the doctrine of ‘social responsibility’ taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity.”

This is one of the things that always struck me as odd in my undergrad economics classes. That somehow we can realistically de-couple our actions in one domain (work) from those of another (politics) when in fact they all lie in the space of human action. This is where I found myself in agreement with Mises - in that all actions have impact socially and thus all economic activity has a social impact.

Thinking or behaving otherwise is a cop-out and a way to try and mentally compartmentalize behavior - it's cognitive dissonance and I see it all the time when people try and "separate" their work life from their personal life. It's a synthetic distinction.

View on HN

I think this separation is a basic strategy for thinking about a complex world, and probably an effective one. I don't think it's meant to be taken too literally, as if the world were actually like that, although I suppose some do take it that way. I doubt people can generally manage a holistic view of everything, practically speaking. I doubt people can manage very accurate views outside narrow domains. The holistic view is valuable, I just don't think it can be applied fulltime. Compartmentalized and simplified models are valuable too. Maybe necessary.

Effective how or toward what ends? Seems to me that how someone views this issue is simply a function of how to skew and distort one's self image to more positively reflect how they want to be seen.

So for example if you do something you don't truly believe in or morally support for your work, then having psychological distance between your work and personal life makes more sense because you aren't staking "who you are" in your work. So you decide to define "who you are" in the other portions of your life.

Again, this seems to be cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

Reminds me of a quote from a previous thread:

>Those of us who came from a business background remember our business ethics in university well. The running joke, from start to finish, is a thank you for compiling together the things we should walk carefully and carry a big stick while doing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16368722

Effective for deciding what to do with your limbs and lips on a day-to-day practical basis.

>So for example if you do something you don't truly believe in or morally support for your work, then having psychological distance between your work and personal life makes more sense because you aren't staking "who you are" in your work.

People have much more control over their actions outside of work though. Not to describe a strict compartmentalization but a diminishment towards your actions at work makes sense. I define "who I am" much more by what it is I do outside of work because I have actually have control over what it is that I do once I walk out of the office.

Not to edge close to a Godwin here, but how is that materially different from a soldier 'just following orders'? If anything, the soldier's excuse is more valid, since it is far easier to quit a job than quit military service. I'm not saying that both are easy, but I am uncomfortable with rationalizing what a person does at work as not reflecting on their moral character.

Most people spend a little bit more than half of their time working, and the rest of their time aggressively not working. For most people, the distinction between public and private self is the most important one in their lives.

That's probably true.

My question is, does making that distinction benefit or damage information about networks/markets?

Helpful or harmful, it doesn't matter. People will go on making the distinction for as long as work is, well, work: something you don't want to do but do anyway because you have to. For as long as people have jobs they don't like doing, they'll try to put those jobs out of their minds, and they will, as you point out, be more able to ignore the moral consequences of their work-life actions.

It matters on the individual level. No doubt you are correct, but in my experience being your authentic self while at work, rather than pretending to be professional/passionate/whatever, is much better for one's mental health

For most people, the distinction between public and private self is the most important one in their lives.

Marx and Engels would have called this, "alienation." I think that they are onto something in this dimension of their critique. Isn't a part of the startup ethos a rebellion against this?

My understanding is that with a startup you eliminate the distinction by spending 100% of your time in work mode.

My understanding is that with a startup you eliminate the distinction by spending 100% of your time in work mode.

My understanding is that with a startup you eliminate the distinction between work-mode and personal-fulfillment mode, thus making yourself 100% productive/engaged and 0% alienated.

You say that like it's a good thing. Having work take over your life is pretty definitively worse than being able to have some private time.

It's the only way to create the divisions between "labor" and "leisure" hours needed for constructing basic utility curves and production functions, and really the only way to apply "math" and measurement to what would otherwise just amount to philosophy or sociology.

Agreed it's somewhat arbitrary and rigid but pretty necessary for making economic decisions and yeah, a division that is hard to cultivate at the personal level - the hours you spend "working" are also shaping you as a person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com