Hacker News Reader

Comment by forgetfreeman | Hacker News Reader

I had a pretty strong negative reaction when reading this and had to sit with it a while to figure out why. I kept coming back to the idea that something about this seems childish to me without initially being able to articulate what, exactly, it was that seemed immature. After I'd had some time to thing on it it occurred to me that the underlying idea is that people are somehow responsible for the author's emotional well-being, that they are somehow owed something, or that perhaps they simply deeply misunderstand work relationships.

View on HN

Sorry, man, but, by your own logic, why is your own strong negative reaction reading this of any relevance? If you have an answer to that, then I think you will also have an answer to why the authors's well-being matters, too. Unless, of course, you mean, emotions are only real when children have them, and if an adult has them, then actually, they are a child..

That adults have emotions isn't in question, whether they manage their emotional landscape or get managed by it is a matter of emotional resilience and maturity. I stand by my statement.

Respectfully, aside from whether or note the tone of the piece is or is not justifiable, I think your comment misses the point, which is that there is injustice in people (or a system) who unfairly shunt work off to you that they should rightly own. The US health industrial complex is indeed a prime example.

It's NOT injustice. That is entirely made up by the author. What agreement or law has been broken?

That’s a fair point. I would say the agreement that has been broken is an implicit social contract (in the sense of Rousseau) that people should share the burdens of society to make society function, and that individuals should do the work that would most appropriately be their responsibility.

Given that ideal hasn't been successful achieved in any society or time period in recorded human history I question getting this spooled up over yet another example of out species missing its own flex goals.

We have established ways of sharing the burdens of social life. This burden sharing is already happening. We negotiate it in real time. I personally began pushing back on certain norms of politeness at age 5. I became labeled as a troublemaker. That’s the price one pays for bucking the system. But it’s not a terrible price.

The author is unhappy with the social order, which is fine. Her error and transgression is in the misappropriation of the concept of “theft.” That is an important concept. We use it to keep order.

It’s like someone pulling a fire alarm to report that she feels really hot.

My take is that it can be one of two things, either the task is delegated to you by your manager, or it's an attempt to shift the task over by a coworker.

If it's a coworker you can ignore it.

If it's your manager and for whatever reason you deem it unfair, reflect on exactly why, then bring it up with the manager, then see if you can align. If not, start looking for other options.

Whether these things are hard or not, is a different and independent issue. New things in life are usually hard.

This is an ad hominen if I ever saw one. You basically disliked the message and felt entitled to condemn the author's personality as immature and used that as the basis to dismiss their opinion as a misunderstanding.

I'm not convinced. Coworkers aren't friends, family, or therapists. They're (hopefully) present to do a job and go home, same as you.

The fact that a big chunk of romantic partnerships and friendships start in the workplace among co-workers tells me a quick cynical dismissal of co-workers as a shallow and single dimensional relationship is not very insightful.

Conversely viewing your coworkers as a massive extended dating pool suggests to me a level of social desperation that's hardly worthy of discussion much less serious consideration. That relationships form at work isn't in question, that's not the point of the exercise however.

I, for one, appreciate your deliberate and expository introspection but if you need this explained to you, there's a chance you will never—and I mean never—get it, but here goes:

Some people believe that we owe it to one another to be considerate to one another, ie to take responsibility for one another's emotional well-being.

Yes, that "underlying idea" is actually quite common in polite society if not outright ubiquitous. In fact, I'm fairly certain that its absence is considered a psychological pathology.

suffering is inseparable from existence, a man is alone responsible for his own expectations ... those who give freely expect nothing in return

The same reasonable people who believe that also believe in reasonable limits to taking responsibility for other peoples' emotional well-being.

It's not right to cry "theft" as if it is unethical to leave things undone that should not be done by anyone, or as if it is unethical to delegate to people to whom it is in your lawful power to delegate. It is, in a way, EVIL, to call that theft. It trivializes the notion of theft.

> It's not right to cry "theft" as if it is unethical to leave things undone that should not be done by anyone

I understand that Newport argues that and tasks shouldn't be done at all, but this is not at all a fair representation of the author's position.

> It is, in a way, EVIL, to call that theft. It trivializes the notion of theft.

You can critique their rhetoric but "evil" is an overreaction. Indeed, your critique that they are weakening the definition of theft applies to your use of "evil".

Right, and I'm not arguing it's OK to be a prick at work. But constructing a New Yorker length article to decry behavior that would more reasonably be ignored or shrugged off seems pretty overwrought to me.

So now we're just in disagreement about where these thresholds lie, and I think that's an OK place to disagree, because it will evolve over time with cultural evolution. I don't need to advise you that it's often tactically advantageous exhibit sensitivity to cultural norms.

That being said, I would be happy to see us hold one another to higher empathic standards than have been expected in corporate culture for the last century. At least one 2008 research study suggests that Narcissistic Personality Inventory scores were on the rise since 1989[0]--among undoubtedly WEIRD[1] college students.

0. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5342670_Egos_Inflat...

1. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/weird

All fair points but let's wargame this out a little further. Let's say for the sake of argument cultural norms are drifting towards infantile behavior. We good or at some point does someone pump the brakes?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com