5 ms·

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

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.

mathattack 10y ago
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.
- woliveirajr 10y ago
  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.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
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.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > 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.
- derefr 10y ago
  > 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.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
I think maybe you had just one non-friend - the one that told you that caustic lie. Just a thought.
- throwanem 10y ago
  That is the parsimonious conclusion.
  - Feuilles_Mortes 10y ago
    I'm unclear as to what you mean by parsimonious.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      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.
- zach-kuhn 10y ago
  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.
- 10y ago
Vaskivo 10y ago
> 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.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  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.)
  - bshimmin 10y ago
    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?
ChuckMcM 10y ago
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.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  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.
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    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.

mathattack 10y ago

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.

woliveirajr 10y ago
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.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

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.

throwanem 10y ago
> 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.
derefr 10y ago
> 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.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

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

throwanem 10y ago
That is the parsimonious conclusion.
- Feuilles_Mortes 10y ago
  I'm unclear as to what you mean by parsimonious.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    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.
zach-kuhn 10y ago
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.
10y ago

Vaskivo 10y ago

> 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.

pessimizer 10y ago
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.)
- bshimmin 10y ago
  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?

ChuckMcM 10y ago

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.

nostrademons 10y ago
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.
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  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.