3 ms·

When I was at Facebook the same kinds of articles would pop up all the time while morale + trust in leadership was pretty high internally. It made me think a lo

by baby 4y ago

When I was at Facebook the same kinds of articles would pop up all the time while morale + trust in leadership was pretty high internally. It made me think a lot about how we perceive other companies and even governments from the outside versus what the reality can be.

pcthrowaway 4y ago
Sounds like you've independently observed the Gell-Mann amnesia effect[1] Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.) Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Why_Speculate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Why_Speculate?
- kevinventullo 4y ago
  As a former FB employee, I have since treated everything from the NYT in particular with suspicion. That said, part of the reason I left was my belief that the VR play was a massive boondoggle.
  - this_steve_j 4y ago
    Reading the News is like hanging with some fancy friends who are entertaining but also a little drunk and starting to repeat themselves. It becomes apparent that the conversation always veers into some heavy and kind of dark shit that is mainly based on conjecture, and nobody is smiling or enjoying themselves. After 20 minutes I’m not having fun anymore and I want to go home. But I’m glad I came, because they might discuss something important without me there.
- ke88y 4y ago
  Gell-Mann Amnesia is about competence. Major Media Outlet coverage of Big Tech isn't (just) incompetent, but also openly adversarial. For both financial and cultural reasons. That said -- I interviewed with FB last month and got the distinct impression that morale was rock bottom.
1letterunixname 4y ago
One of the heads of microkitchens expressed to me how they received lots of unpleasant messages recently. I expressed my support to them and how people may not be wanting to necessarily attack them, but are frustrated at the company as an entity and in the time. I think would ask for communicating changes and avenues for feedback more actionably and precisely. All of these changes create uncertainty and ruin morale, especially the uncertainty around multiple rounds layoffs. I'm looking passively because the team I'm on isn't interesting in doing anything resembling professional software engineering and there aren't enough cool, fun people around. The food is no longer good, the offices are unremarkable, and there's no real reason to go to the office because I don't know anyone, the people there aren't social people, and I don't have anything in common with them.

by baby 4y ago

pcthrowaway 4y ago

Sounds like you've independently observed the Gell-Mann amnesia effect[1] Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.) Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Why_Speculate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Why_Speculate?

kevinventullo 4y ago
As a former FB employee, I have since treated everything from the NYT in particular with suspicion. That said, part of the reason I left was my belief that the VR play was a massive boondoggle.
- this_steve_j 4y ago
  Reading the News is like hanging with some fancy friends who are entertaining but also a little drunk and starting to repeat themselves. It becomes apparent that the conversation always veers into some heavy and kind of dark shit that is mainly based on conjecture, and nobody is smiling or enjoying themselves. After 20 minutes I’m not having fun anymore and I want to go home. But I’m glad I came, because they might discuss something important without me there.
ke88y 4y ago
Gell-Mann Amnesia is about competence. Major Media Outlet coverage of Big Tech isn't (just) incompetent, but also openly adversarial. For both financial and cultural reasons. That said -- I interviewed with FB last month and got the distinct impression that morale was rock bottom.

1letterunixname 4y ago

One of the heads of microkitchens expressed to me how they received lots of unpleasant messages recently. I expressed my support to them and how people may not be wanting to necessarily attack them, but are frustrated at the company as an entity and in the time. I think would ask for communicating changes and avenues for feedback more actionably and precisely. All of these changes create uncertainty and ruin morale, especially the uncertainty around multiple rounds layoffs. I'm looking passively because the team I'm on isn't interesting in doing anything resembling professional software engineering and there aren't enough cool, fun people around. The food is no longer good, the offices are unremarkable, and there's no real reason to go to the office because I don't know anyone, the people there aren't social people, and I don't have anything in common with them.