4 ms·

What bothers me about any principle related to work is that work itself is so very contextual. - The same work can be exciting or traumatic depending on whethe

by Bakary 4y ago

What bothers me about any principle related to work is that work itself is so very contextual. - The same work can be exciting or traumatic depending on whether it's a task you set yourself or got roped into by some other entity. A CEO can easily be less stressed than a low-level employee despite having tasks of greater responsibility and magnitude (see Whitehall study for instance) - The adjustment of interest in the same exact task can occur in an instant, as soon as you become aware of the new context, and regardless of whether there's any material change e.g. learning that you are underpaid compared to your coworkers, or having someone tell you to do the chores you were going to do anyway, or if someone tells you they set out the task for you because they think you are the only person competent enough for it - It's far easier for talented people like Witty or Weil to find self-actualization, because the range of tasks they can try out to satisfying effect is vaster and more compressed in time. Furthermore, they are more adept at lacing their actions with mental or aesthetic qualities such as philosophical statements, which makes rationalization easier. - Work is becoming more virtualized and hard to pin down, especially in the digital space. Imagine describing to Witty a person whose specialty is to find vulnerabilities in Instagram's network protocols to be able to make enough queries to catch juicy usernames, which will in turn be sold to third parties optimize the sale of a virtual deed of ownership of a virtual picture of an ape. He's smart and would probably get the idea quickly, but still...

UncleOxidant 4y ago
> The same work can be exciting or traumatic depending on whether it's a task you set yourself or got roped into by some other entity. Indeed. A question I often think about: How can we keep our work from damaging us? Many of us have experienced damaging work - work (or a work environment) that is actually causing us mental or physical harm. And others can be in exactly the same job/environment and not experience any damage. I haven't come up with much of an answer to the question, but autonomy, control and choice seem to have something to do with it. But there's also futility and frustration that even those who choose a task can feel.
- gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
  Is that a valuable goal? It’s like asking how can we keep from ever being sick? Or how can we keep from being sore? Damage is a necessary part of life. Suffering will drive innovations within work or drive you out of a job. Both are decent ends.
  - UncleOxidant 4y ago
    Two people can be in the same job environment which one finds damaging and the other finds enriching (or at least not damaging) . I want to find out how the one who is not damaged figured out how to do that - that seems like a worthy goal. Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" is sort of a plan for surviving the worst case scenario. Why not also use some of those insights to survive work?
    - em-bee 4y ago
      for me it is the ability to put the work in a greater context. not just the work itself, but also in what it enables you to do. for some, the fact that their work provides for their family can be enough. others need a more direct relationship between the work and its impact. answering the question of the purpose of life itself, can be a factor here. for me the purpose is to contribute to an ever advancing civilization. so for me, work has to contribute something to that. but at one point i had a job that decidedly did not contribute anything positive, but it enabled me to make a positive contribution outside of work, that i would not have been able to do otherwise at that time. i didn't last in that job because it wasn't motivating enough, but it did help me to get the foot into a door, where i could find a more meaningful occupation afterwards. had i rejected that job my life would have turned out completely different.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    It's precisely because work-related damage is only semi-necessary that it is so traumatic. Everywhere you look, there are people who have essentially avoided surrendering decades of their lives by being lucky and/or successful in business. Even 30 decisive seconds during a job interview can lead to enormous differences in salary for a job lasting multiple years. A few minutes spent on a crypto forum in 2009 can mean 100x more than a decade of hard work and education. By contrast, illness and soreness are humming background noises that you can get used to.

by Bakary 4y ago

UncleOxidant 4y ago

> The same work can be exciting or traumatic depending on whether it's a task you set yourself or got roped into by some other entity. Indeed. A question I often think about: How can we keep our work from damaging us? Many of us have experienced damaging work - work (or a work environment) that is actually causing us mental or physical harm. And others can be in exactly the same job/environment and not experience any damage. I haven't come up with much of an answer to the question, but autonomy, control and choice seem to have something to do with it. But there's also futility and frustration that even those who choose a task can feel.

gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
Is that a valuable goal? It’s like asking how can we keep from ever being sick? Or how can we keep from being sore? Damage is a necessary part of life. Suffering will drive innovations within work or drive you out of a job. Both are decent ends.
- UncleOxidant 4y ago
  Two people can be in the same job environment which one finds damaging and the other finds enriching (or at least not damaging) . I want to find out how the one who is not damaged figured out how to do that - that seems like a worthy goal. Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" is sort of a plan for surviving the worst case scenario. Why not also use some of those insights to survive work?
  - em-bee 4y ago
    for me it is the ability to put the work in a greater context. not just the work itself, but also in what it enables you to do. for some, the fact that their work provides for their family can be enough. others need a more direct relationship between the work and its impact. answering the question of the purpose of life itself, can be a factor here. for me the purpose is to contribute to an ever advancing civilization. so for me, work has to contribute something to that. but at one point i had a job that decidedly did not contribute anything positive, but it enabled me to make a positive contribution outside of work, that i would not have been able to do otherwise at that time. i didn't last in that job because it wasn't motivating enough, but it did help me to get the foot into a door, where i could find a more meaningful occupation afterwards. had i rejected that job my life would have turned out completely different.
- Bakary 4y ago
  It's precisely because work-related damage is only semi-necessary that it is so traumatic. Everywhere you look, there are people who have essentially avoided surrendering decades of their lives by being lucky and/or successful in business. Even 30 decisive seconds during a job interview can lead to enormous differences in salary for a job lasting multiple years. A few minutes spent on a crypto forum in 2009 can mean 100x more than a decade of hard work and education. By contrast, illness and soreness are humming background noises that you can get used to.