Hacker News Reader

Comment by davesque | Hacker News Reader

Something I think is missing from this list: make a sacrifice for the sake of the other person.

If trust has been damaged, it might take more than just talk to repair it. You may need to give the other person part of what they want as a gesture of good will. I've seen this go a long way in certain situations.

Of course, this comes with some caveats. For example, if there's a power imbalance in a damaged relationship, it's not appropriate for the disadvantaged side to be making sacrifices. Also, the person making the sacrifice is entitled to notice whether or not the other party appreciates it. After all, no one wants to be taken advantage of.

The point is sometimes you just need to demonstrate a charitable attitude when you want things to get back on track.

View on HN

If you trusted that a sacrifice would be received, you wouldn't need to make it. You'd already have trust.

Instead, both sides will view themselves as disadvantaged. That's how you got into this mess.

You can do it anyway, and live with the fact that you expect it to be a waste. Sometimes that touches off a virtuous cycle. Sometimes it reinforces a vicious one. There's no way to know beforehand.

The question is: is it worth it? How far do you have to degrade yourself before you decide that the other person won't come around? Maybe it's better to just split and spend your effort elsewhere.

Super important point. And I'd say not even about degrading but more about deviating from own true self. In relationships, the need for security / protection is often measured in the degree of sacrifice the partner is willing to offer up. The problem is it's a temporary effect as this new sacrifice will at some point becomes the new baseline.

I used to sacrifice too much thinking this was how to express love, but often it's counter productive. Either becoming a crutch for the partner or completely losing a sense of self.

Example is phone messages. My girl used to get insecure and ask to see them, I had nothing to hide but obliged. Until I recognise this was feeding insecurity and crossing boundaries. I changed my perspective and the next time I said no. That was met with "arr you hiding something" (i wasnt) but explained concept of sovereignty. She stopped asking. It certainly puts the responsibility on her in that case to deal with her past issues rather than me being a bandaid for them.

That's one example, and I'm just as often the one doing the wrong in my relationship. Interesting learning experiences. But me taking this firmer position has been very important in my wellness.

Degrade is an interesting word. I am comfortable changing for others to make them comfortable because the behavior is not about me and I simply know myself a enough to not mind.

> it's not appropriate for the disadvantaged side to be making sacrifices.

No it totally is. The entire point in it being a sacrifice is that it comes at some cost and it’s not something you have to do. If you’re basically forced to do it, it’s not a sacrifice. If it’s no sweat of your back, it’s not a sacrifice. This applies to both parties. There’s no one-dimensional thing called “power”. If there was then there would be 100% absolutely nothing you could do about the situation.

> If you’re basically forced to do it, it’s not a sacrifice.

You just declared this by fiat. People are forced into making sacrifices all the time, and there are no logical fallacies up their sleeves.

It’s semantics, and I don’t mean that to be dismissive - GP sounds like they’re using a definition of “sacrifice” that’s essentially voluntary; you sound like you’re using a definition of sacrifice that’s essentially hmmm maybe “diminishing” (“I am less that I was before I sacrificed”)

I do agree with GP, in sentiment - part of the impact of giving something up in these situations is that it is voluntary.

Forced sacrifice - I don’t think that can restore trust, only subservience; which, to be sure, can be seen as trust in certain situations (the loyalty of a yes-man, for example), but I’d strongly argue that that isn’t the kind of trust the article is talking about.

Agree, this happens all the time in the real world, in fact close to the norm in some situations.

e.g. Secretary messes up bosses' calendar/email/etc... really badly, usually with the help of a computer, and has to work overtime to fix it, without extra compensation.

That's not sacrifice.

Sure it is. Fucking up is part of a job. If you’re working 9-5 on the clock, you don’t have to fix shit after 5. Choosing to stick around to fix your mistake off hours without pay when you could do it the next day or take comp time later is a sacrifice of your time/money.

If I hire someone to work on my house and they fuck up, e.g., hit a water or gas pipe, I expect them to fix it asap, with no additional pay. Fucking up is not part of the job if you’re doing the hiring……

Happened to me once, long time ago, I was cleaning up an oracle db production server, and by accident deleted to system datafile of the database. Sat there till midnight to fix it, but at least I had proof the backups were working…

No.

This highlights one of the key differences between owners and employees.

Employees are not nominally liable for mistakes they make while employed, excepting things like gross negligence or malicious behavior.

If an employee makes a mistake, forcing them to work "off the clock" to fix that mistake is a violation of labor law in pretty much every jurisdiction of which I am aware.

An employee could volunteer to do so, but frankly, as a "boss" myself, I would neither expect nor accept such a gesture.

Mistakes happen. It's part of the cost of doing business, and if you're a competent businessman, you factor that in. What I expect is that that employee won't make the same mistake again.

But I have and will never expect someone to work without being paid as agreed.

You don't see a difference between a contractor and an employee?

...does the company do, except for the amount of paperwork ?

Well, yes. There's a legal difference when overtime is being worked.

Companies go to court over the distinction.

Sounds like you sacrificed your time to make things right! Good on you!

That’s wage theft. It’s criminal to expect or not compensate for (unless salaried which is free season for exploitation)

I think that heavily depend on severity of the fuckup.

If you comitted a bug bringing the whole site down at 16:50 then went "welp, I won't fix it in 10 minutes, sucks to be on ops team today!", your login wouldn't work tomorrow

Yes, but I assure you the pink slip won’t mention anything about how the employee should have worked free overtime to fix their mistake. These things all vary considerably based on the type of employment. The only thing I’m arguing is semantic, but an important distinction in terms of recognizing the dignity in choosing to work for free in regards to the original point about giving alms.

Because...?

One should also expect it to take time. Perhaps the best analogy I've heard is that trust is a glass jar -- it can be slowly diminished or emptied out all at once (or the jar could indeed shatter), but absent extreme circumstances, the way in which it is usually built is by adding one marble of trust at a time and without doing anything to damage the trust until the jar is full.

I agree, to phrase it a little different, you have to make yourself vulnerable to repair a connection. Ideally, both sides will :)

You are correct.

Words are cheap, and trust is expensive to repair, if it can be repaired at all.

As a software engineer in a fast paced high expectations team, I’ve come to realize writing tests is a good way to show this charitable attitude especially when you are new and have little knowledge and little leverage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

You don't put labor at the same level as imprisonment, aren't you?

You're free to leave the employer. If you want to sacrifice your life/free to to gain something in the specific target area you already know that this behavior is expected and usual there.

Labor is only imprisonment if you degrade yourself to it.

sorry should have added more context, this isn't about prison. It's game theory about limits of cooperation in low trust environments.

"The prisoner's dilemma is a game theory thought experiment that involves two rational agents, each of whom can cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner ("defect") for individual reward"

> If trust has been damaged, it might take more than just talk to repair it. You may need to give the other person part of what they want as a gesture of good will.

Reminds me of mob movies.

If one of your guys killed the rival's daughter, to avoid a war the best you can do is meet the rival, be sorry, say you should've been more vigilant and offer your guy or two (the sacrifice) so they can punish them and extract revenge.

At a point of sacrifice I would put breaks and evaluate utility and future of relationship. If we have reached a place where I am expected to be on negative return, hm it requires some roadmap.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com