3 ms·

On one hand, if a person is mindful and aware of their actions, they are likely to make thoughtful decisions about what is appropriate. On the other hand, some

by xpe 5y ago

On one hand, if a person is mindful and aware of their actions, they are likely to make thoughtful decisions about what is appropriate. On the other hand, some habits form slowly. Sometimes bad habits creep in when you are in a hurry or lazy. It depends on many factors. Many people find value in setting rules that seem too strict for others. Know yourself and choose accordingly and/or adapt to your workplace as necessary.

taeric 5y ago
This is the slippery slope argument. My assertion is that we shouldn't, as a society, accept that some things are wrong. Such that that is the wrong argument to use here. At large, I also think that this means some things can't be codified. Such that some activities are highly dependent on expected duties of the employee. As an example, as a security guard, if on the job you think up a good movie script and get it written, I don't see any argument that you thought of it while at work compelling. Even if you jotted notes throughout the day. If you are a staff writer for a studio, I'm sure the case is different. So the same here. It is not a slippery slope. Nor is it a uniform field. And, in general, I suspect I would side with individuals over corporations way more. Probably not exclusively, but predominantly. Edit: not that I think your advice is bad, really.
- xpe 5y ago
  > My assertion is that we shouldn't, as a society, accept that some things are wrong. Such that that is the wrong argument to use here. I'm not sure I'm following how your comments got here. Do you intend to make the above broad assertion ("we shouldn't, as a society, accept that some things are wrong")? To put it another way, are you arguing in favor of moral relativism?
  - taeric 5y ago
    Sorry. I'm fine accepting that some things are wrong. I specifically meant the examples in question here. So, I did not mean that we shouldn't accept that any things are wrong. I do think we should be very picky on the things we accept as wrong, in and of themselves.
    - xpe 5y ago
      > I do think we should be very picky on the things we accept as wrong, in and of themselves. An interesting point. Many of these assessments are arguably subconscious and/or inculcated. Some philosophies aspire to as few fundamental guiding principles as possible. Such a structure tends to improve self-consistency. Other philosophies allow a broader mix of principles, sometimes in tension, which require considerable subjective discussion to untangle. Perhaps one could say these philosophies value human discussion as a core principle from which meaning is constructed.
      - taeric 5y ago
        I am not up to date on philosophies. What little I have learned over the years has waned in my mind such that I don't trust I have it right. That said "these philosophies value human discussion as a core principal" really resonates with me. I don't like policies that are designed to be enforced without the people involved interacting with each other in some form. Again, yes there are some straw men that we should burn down when they appear, but I have a hard time with policies pushed in a "zero tolerance" fashion.
- xpe 5y ago
  > At large, I also think that this means some things can't be codified. Such that some activities are highly dependent on expected duties of the employee. I'm pretty sure you mean "some things shouldn't be codified". I'm not trying simply to nitpick; I think using the word "should" signals very clearly that you are making a value judgment, not a judgment of what is possible. Here's how I'm interpreting your words: "There are many employee behaviors that employers want to promote that are too nuanced or complex to codify". I have a lot of concerns with such a statement: 1. I've seen a lot of people make such a statement because they are unwilling and/or unable to design policies. Some people want perfection, and the messiness and complexity of the real world bothers them. Instead of embracing and managing this uncertainty, they retreat to the false dichotomy of "if we can't do it perfectly, we shouldn't try it at all". 2. I find the statement implies the wrong goal. The goal isn't perfection; rather, the goal is to make policies that *improve* relative to *the next best alternative*. To design policies and assess performance toward such goals, I like to use a combination of systems thinking, probabilistic reasoning, and realistic models of human behavior. This also depends on your role. If you have a leadership role, you will likely see that not designing and advocating for policies is an abdication of your responsibilities. In short, no matter how imperfect, you have to make a decision. To quote a movie title, you can't be neutral on a moving train.
  - taeric 5y ago
    Ah, completely agreed on my word choice being wrong there. Agreed on doing things to try to move the needle in a better direction. I will disagree the minute things land in a "zero tolerance" bucket. Yes, there are easy straw men that can and should be burned down. Nuance and discretion abound, though. So, I probably do not disagree with the method for making policies you are describing. I'm also probably more comfortable with the idea that many policies are ultimately to be questioned, as well.

by xpe 5y ago

taeric 5y ago

This is the slippery slope argument. My assertion is that we shouldn't, as a society, accept that some things are wrong. Such that that is the wrong argument to use here. At large, I also think that this means some things can't be codified. Such that some activities are highly dependent on expected duties of the employee. As an example, as a security guard, if on the job you think up a good movie script and get it written, I don't see any argument that you thought of it while at work compelling. Even if you jotted notes throughout the day. If you are a staff writer for a studio, I'm sure the case is different. So the same here. It is not a slippery slope. Nor is it a uniform field. And, in general, I suspect I would side with individuals over corporations way more. Probably not exclusively, but predominantly. Edit: not that I think your advice is bad, really.

xpe 5y ago
> My assertion is that we shouldn't, as a society, accept that some things are wrong. Such that that is the wrong argument to use here. I'm not sure I'm following how your comments got here. Do you intend to make the above broad assertion ("we shouldn't, as a society, accept that some things are wrong")? To put it another way, are you arguing in favor of moral relativism?
- taeric 5y ago
  Sorry. I'm fine accepting that some things are wrong. I specifically meant the examples in question here. So, I did not mean that we shouldn't accept that any things are wrong. I do think we should be very picky on the things we accept as wrong, in and of themselves.
  - xpe 5y ago
    > I do think we should be very picky on the things we accept as wrong, in and of themselves. An interesting point. Many of these assessments are arguably subconscious and/or inculcated. Some philosophies aspire to as few fundamental guiding principles as possible. Such a structure tends to improve self-consistency. Other philosophies allow a broader mix of principles, sometimes in tension, which require considerable subjective discussion to untangle. Perhaps one could say these philosophies value human discussion as a core principle from which meaning is constructed.
    - taeric 5y ago
      I am not up to date on philosophies. What little I have learned over the years has waned in my mind such that I don't trust I have it right. That said "these philosophies value human discussion as a core principal" really resonates with me. I don't like policies that are designed to be enforced without the people involved interacting with each other in some form. Again, yes there are some straw men that we should burn down when they appear, but I have a hard time with policies pushed in a "zero tolerance" fashion.
xpe 5y ago
> At large, I also think that this means some things can't be codified. Such that some activities are highly dependent on expected duties of the employee. I'm pretty sure you mean "some things shouldn't be codified". I'm not trying simply to nitpick; I think using the word "should" signals very clearly that you are making a value judgment, not a judgment of what is possible. Here's how I'm interpreting your words: "There are many employee behaviors that employers want to promote that are too nuanced or complex to codify". I have a lot of concerns with such a statement: 1. I've seen a lot of people make such a statement because they are unwilling and/or unable to design policies. Some people want perfection, and the messiness and complexity of the real world bothers them. Instead of embracing and managing this uncertainty, they retreat to the false dichotomy of "if we can't do it perfectly, we shouldn't try it at all". 2. I find the statement implies the wrong goal. The goal isn't perfection; rather, the goal is to make policies that *improve* relative to *the next best alternative*. To design policies and assess performance toward such goals, I like to use a combination of systems thinking, probabilistic reasoning, and realistic models of human behavior. This also depends on your role. If you have a leadership role, you will likely see that not designing and advocating for policies is an abdication of your responsibilities. In short, no matter how imperfect, you have to make a decision. To quote a movie title, you can't be neutral on a moving train.
- taeric 5y ago
  Ah, completely agreed on my word choice being wrong there. Agreed on doing things to try to move the needle in a better direction. I will disagree the minute things land in a "zero tolerance" bucket. Yes, there are easy straw men that can and should be burned down. Nuance and discretion abound, though. So, I probably do not disagree with the method for making policies you are describing. I'm also probably more comfortable with the idea that many policies are ultimately to be questioned, as well.