16 ms·

> In this interview, we asked James to apply his unique blend of academic research and personal anecdote to the biggest issues facing the modern worker. “Worke

> In this interview, we asked James to apply his unique blend of academic research and personal anecdote to the biggest issues facing the modern worker. “Worker” is not a noun I would apply to myself. I'd say “person”. Yes, I “do work”, but that doesn't mean I “am a worker”. Turning the verb into a noun implies that that activity is somehow fundamental to your identity. (Look at a few bios and it's clear that being a parent and a spouse is very important to a lot of people.) If you “are a worker”, you'll have no problem doing your work — that's who you are and what you do. If you're just a person who “does work”, well then the ideas around identity in this article won't be applicable. The article talks about considering deeply what you really want to achieve, what type of person you want to be. And it kind of assumes the answer to that question is a glib “productive” or an exasperated “the sort of person who doesn't spend 2 hours on Facebook every night”. It doesn't ask “why?”, and I think that's more fundamental. This article seems quite shallow.

quietbritishjim 9y ago
Do you also object to the terms "programmer" or "actor"? Would they be better called "person who programs" and "person that acts"? Perhaps if we're down the pub and I responded to a question about who I am by saying "I'm a programmer" it would be odd. If we're in a meeting at work and I'm just trying to distinguish the number of people available to program software rather than design UI, saying "we have x programmers and y UI designers" seems pretty reasonable to me. I think that also applies to the context where "worker" was used in the article.
- gregknicholson 9y ago
  I would object to someone applying them to me, because I am not fundamentally a programmer or an actor. But it's a perfectly cromulent way to use words! I'm not objecting to the turn of phrase at all. My point is just that I draw this distinction (between “an Xer” and “a person who Xes”) when describing people, and I think it's a useful nuance. I don't know whether the writer (and the word somehow loses its special significance after the definite article — I'm not saying it's logical; it's just how my mind reads these things) consciously chose “worker” rather than “hobbyist” or “busy person”. But I think it shows how they see the (abstract) people they're describing. It made me realise that, yes, this advice is useful, but perhaps only to people who “are workers” rather than “do work”. And I agree completely that in this context, “a programmer” or “a worker” is precisely what you need — you don't need a person, you need a function.

quietbritishjim 9y ago

Do you also object to the terms "programmer" or "actor"? Would they be better called "person who programs" and "person that acts"? Perhaps if we're down the pub and I responded to a question about who I am by saying "I'm a programmer" it would be odd. If we're in a meeting at work and I'm just trying to distinguish the number of people available to program software rather than design UI, saying "we have x programmers and y UI designers" seems pretty reasonable to me. I think that also applies to the context where "worker" was used in the article.

gregknicholson 9y ago
I would object to someone applying them to me, because I am not fundamentally a programmer or an actor. But it's a perfectly cromulent way to use words! I'm not objecting to the turn of phrase at all. My point is just that I draw this distinction (between “an Xer” and “a person who Xes”) when describing people, and I think it's a useful nuance. I don't know whether the writer (and the word somehow loses its special significance after the definite article — I'm not saying it's logical; it's just how my mind reads these things) consciously chose “worker” rather than “hobbyist” or “busy person”. But I think it shows how they see the (abstract) people they're describing. It made me realise that, yes, this advice is useful, but perhaps only to people who “are workers” rather than “do work”. And I agree completely that in this context, “a programmer” or “a worker” is precisely what you need — you don't need a person, you need a function.