4 ms·
Sorry for the double-reply, but I realize I didn't address the meat of your comment. > When people hold a self-perception of what they do that is wildly at odd
by wutbrodo 6y ago
Sorry for the double-reply, but I realize I didn't address the meat of your comment.
> When people hold a self-perception of what they do that is wildly at odds with what you think they do, it's often because folks who actively believe they are doing bad for the world are often so bitter that nobody wants to be around them.
I don't agree with this, at least as applied to my comment. There's a wide, wide gulf of reasonableness between "what I do is unhelpfuly and unworthy" and "everyone in my industry is an omnibenevolent, maximally-selfless angel". I'm quite proud of the work I do without thinking this, and as I mentioned in my previous comment, if my sister had a possibly-irrational but not totally-unreasonable greater pride in her work, I wouldn't blame her at all. But doctors who consider themselves a separate moral species from human beings aren't just egomaniacs, they're _dangerous_ (as I said, my sister luckily grew out of this a little bit).
- nostrademons 6y agoI think that people vary greatly in terms of their "set point" for how much they believe people in general are benevolent. HN is filled with skeptics and critics; our set point is pretty low. Most of the rest of the world considers that to be an unreasonable downer: if you go into a typical party saying "The AMA is a tax-exempt hedge fund and licensing corporation", best case you'll get smiles and nods and worst case you won't be invited back. I don't know your sister, and you can judge a lot better than I whether her beliefs in the benevolence of her profession are "reasonable". I'm saying that it's pretty common for people to hold a positive emotional view of their work in particular and the world in general, because, well, positive emotions feel more positive.