2 ms·

I see this trend as a reaction to the rise of what David Graeber calls "bullshit jobs" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org

I see this trend as a reaction to the rise of what David Graeber calls "bullshit jobs" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs). Look at the jobs that people like to simulate: pilot, driver, farmer, heavy machinery operator, emergency responder (police/fireman), etc. What do these jobs all have in common? They're jobs where you can do something, usually with your hands, and immediately see what you did impact the world. That direct connection to outcomes is the opposite of the weird futility that permeates the bullshit job. Getting back to it is what the simulator player is really after, the truck or tractor or whatever is just set dressing. (For bonus points, consider the jobs that are popular to simulate in the context of Marx's theory of alienation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation)

philwelch 8y ago
The problem with "bullshit jobs" isn't necessarily that they're completely unnecessary, it's that they lie many layers of indirection and specialization away from the delivery of value. For example, receptionists and secretaries (two rapidly dying professions, BTW) don't just "serve to make their superiors feel important", they significantly improve the productivity of the people they assist. These jobs are literally an Econ 101 example of comparative advantage. But even those examples are blatantly obvious to anyone who actually works with a receptionist or secretary. Other examples are less so, but effective organizations try to do a good job of showing people how their work fits into the bigger picture. If you're on an assembly line all day drilling three holes into a sheet of steel, by default you're going to feel alienated. The solution to that is to say, no, you're not just drilling three holes into a sheet of steel, you're helping to build a car. And if you do your job well, you're going to build the best cars in the world. And if you have ideas about how to improve the part of the manufacturing process that you're personally involved in, we will continuously improve the process based on your feedback. And so on and so forth. Alienation happens, but it doesn't have to, and when it does happen, it usually either leads to or coincides with poor results. Those solutions I mentioned didn't come from academics or revolutionaries; they came from engineers and industrialists. Pointless jobs do exist, but most of these jobs exist for reasons like "it's hard to efficiently coordinate large organizations", "sometimes game theory leads to shitty outcomes", and "some people are either con artists or cranks".
filleokus 8y ago
I thought just about this the other day, when I stumbled upon some category on a streaming service. It contained dramatic documentaries about various workers, all of which shared similar characteristics to those one can play in a simulator. I started to think about how hard it would be to create a docuseries about any of the positions prevalent among HN people. "We need to refactor this codbase, ASAP!" is not really worthy of dramatic cuts and voiceovers. I like my work, but it is kind of baffling how most of my day is spent manipulating "imaginary" things. So many levels of abstraction between what I do and the final (and only) physical result: The change of light emission on someones piece of glass somewhere. (And of course changed charges in some memory module somewhere, but that's quite hard to observe for the casual viewer)
- philwelch 8y ago
  There are (used to be?) a bunch of popular documentary series about these jobs, like "Ice Road Truckers" or "Deadliest Catch" or "Axe Men". Part of the appeal is that these are jobs where you can actually see the work that they're doing. Another part of the appeal is the inherent drama in these workers risking their lives. (There's a strong positive correlation between "rate of workplace accidental deaths" and "how interesting a job seems in a documentary".) I think another issue is specialization. If you don't actually have a ton of background knowledge about software in general, and your particular software requirements in particular, the things that people that you and I worry about all day aren't really meaningful. Like, if you watch Star Trek, you don't actually know what the technobabble means (because it doesn't mean anything), and the only reason you care in the first place is because the end result is whether or not the ship blows up. Software engineering is like that except without a ship blowing up. Likewise, medical and courtroom dramas are far more interesting than the real life of a doctor or a lawyer because they spend most of their time immersed in the arcane. Which is kind of what simulators like this help with. You're not going to understand how to drive a train or maintain a Spitfire by reading a book or anything, and nobody actually has to know how to do those things unless they do them for a living, but getting a chance to pretend to do these things in a game gives you a broader understanding and helps you understand and appreciate the people who do these jobs.

philwelch 8y ago

The problem with "bullshit jobs" isn't necessarily that they're completely unnecessary, it's that they lie many layers of indirection and specialization away from the delivery of value. For example, receptionists and secretaries (two rapidly dying professions, BTW) don't just "serve to make their superiors feel important", they significantly improve the productivity of the people they assist. These jobs are literally an Econ 101 example of comparative advantage. But even those examples are blatantly obvious to anyone who actually works with a receptionist or secretary. Other examples are less so, but effective organizations try to do a good job of showing people how their work fits into the bigger picture. If you're on an assembly line all day drilling three holes into a sheet of steel, by default you're going to feel alienated. The solution to that is to say, no, you're not just drilling three holes into a sheet of steel, you're helping to build a car. And if you do your job well, you're going to build the best cars in the world. And if you have ideas about how to improve the part of the manufacturing process that you're personally involved in, we will continuously improve the process based on your feedback. And so on and so forth. Alienation happens, but it doesn't have to, and when it does happen, it usually either leads to or coincides with poor results. Those solutions I mentioned didn't come from academics or revolutionaries; they came from engineers and industrialists. Pointless jobs do exist, but most of these jobs exist for reasons like "it's hard to efficiently coordinate large organizations", "sometimes game theory leads to shitty outcomes", and "some people are either con artists or cranks".

filleokus 8y ago

I thought just about this the other day, when I stumbled upon some category on a streaming service. It contained dramatic documentaries about various workers, all of which shared similar characteristics to those one can play in a simulator. I started to think about how hard it would be to create a docuseries about any of the positions prevalent among HN people. "We need to refactor this codbase, ASAP!" is not really worthy of dramatic cuts and voiceovers. I like my work, but it is kind of baffling how most of my day is spent manipulating "imaginary" things. So many levels of abstraction between what I do and the final (and only) physical result: The change of light emission on someones piece of glass somewhere. (And of course changed charges in some memory module somewhere, but that's quite hard to observe for the casual viewer)

philwelch 8y ago
There are (used to be?) a bunch of popular documentary series about these jobs, like "Ice Road Truckers" or "Deadliest Catch" or "Axe Men". Part of the appeal is that these are jobs where you can actually see the work that they're doing. Another part of the appeal is the inherent drama in these workers risking their lives. (There's a strong positive correlation between "rate of workplace accidental deaths" and "how interesting a job seems in a documentary".) I think another issue is specialization. If you don't actually have a ton of background knowledge about software in general, and your particular software requirements in particular, the things that people that you and I worry about all day aren't really meaningful. Like, if you watch Star Trek, you don't actually know what the technobabble means (because it doesn't mean anything), and the only reason you care in the first place is because the end result is whether or not the ship blows up. Software engineering is like that except without a ship blowing up. Likewise, medical and courtroom dramas are far more interesting than the real life of a doctor or a lawyer because they spend most of their time immersed in the arcane. Which is kind of what simulators like this help with. You're not going to understand how to drive a train or maintain a Spitfire by reading a book or anything, and nobody actually has to know how to do those things unless they do them for a living, but getting a chance to pretend to do these things in a game gives you a broader understanding and helps you understand and appreciate the people who do these jobs.