3 ms·

That's pretty unfair. They never said it was evidence let alone weighty evidence, they offered examples of where they see this phenomenon in their life and in o

That's pretty unfair. They never said it was evidence let alone weighty evidence, they offered examples of where they see this phenomenon in their life and in our culture. This is clearly a subjective interpretation/critique of another text ("I read this as"). That's perfectly reasonable to include in a blog post primarily about personal experience.

etrautmann 3y ago
It’s a subjective interpretation that strikes me as fairly strained. It’s clear that Cal Newport would not advocate that, and I highly doubt would support what the author has written. There’s a difference between work that someone else has to do and work that nobody has to do, and I believe Cal was advocating for dropping BS work that nobody needs to do. This may even include entire committees, etc.
- maxbond 3y ago
  Maybe so, I'm not familiar with Newport, but very few people would advocate for externalizing your costs on to others. I'll take it as a given that Newport wasn't advocating for that (or rather, that Newport would not himself characterize it that way). But I think the argument is that that is the outcome (rather than the intent), even if the task that gets pushed onto others doesn't need to exist. (And this is a different claim than that the author is essentially jumping at shadows, which is fine, I think it's a reasonable take, but that's what I was originally responding to.)
darkerside 3y ago
Labeling this as EFT, comparing it to illegal action, implies that this act is hostile. That implies that Newport is inciting violence.
- maxbond 3y ago
  What? I think it's pretty clear theft is a metaphor and that no one is suggesting this is illegal. Even if it were, theft is a far cry from inciting violence. Eg if I advocated shoplifting (don't shoplift) I wouldn't be inciting violence, I'd be inciting shoplifting. (Theft by violent means is called robbery.)
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    PP said that it was _compared_ to an illegal act, which the author did. > (Theft by violent means is called robbery.) (Legally, that's not accurate.) _Morally_, all theft is violence. Shoplifting a pack of chewing gum is extremely minor, almost zero but it's not zero. Shoplifting also includes the "flash mobs" which run in and steam items, or the folks who walk into stores (e.g. in California) with trash bags and loot as much as they can fit because they know the employees won't touch them and the legal punishment is almost zero.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      I'm open to theft being violence (though skeptical, that seems to elevate property to the moral status of a person), but comparing something to theft isn't in the same universe as incitement to violence. When you say someone has implied that someone else is "inciting violence" I think the comparison has broken down and we're getting into accusation territory. That certainly wasn't what I meant by shoplifting but if I said, "we should all start going to big box stores with trash bags and stealing stuff, because the employees will not resist us and we won't have to fear a physical altercation" (again, don't do that, that's not my real position, you shouldn't steal shit) I don't think that is reasonable to call "inciting violence." Inciting violence is literally calling for people to be hurt or killed. I don't really want to quibble about the precise definition of words, my problem with that comment was that it seemed like an escalation from nowhere, disconnected from what the author was actually arguing for.
      - brightlancer 3y ago
        > Inciting violence is literally calling for people to be hurt or killed. Is taking things that belong to someone else not hurting them? If people steal so much that the business has to close, have the owners been hurt? The employees are now out of jobs -- have they been hurt? Maybe it doesn't force the business to close, they just have to raise prices on everyone else. Or they have to lay one of their employees off. Petty theft is still theft. Small injuries are still injuries. Small violence is still violence.
adolph 3y ago
True, I can see how “weighty evidence” overstated the weak case presented by the author. In the examples of Newport and Ferriss, the author ironically cites the cure for EFT as the problem. At a high level, net value of any task is gross value - effort value. Newport’s point isn’t to not do small tasks but make time for big ones, and if less important tasks fall by the wayside, then better those than significant work. Ferriss’ point is that of Ricardoian economics at a micro level: not all tasks can be done with equal efficiency by different people, thus route tasks to where they are most efficiently performed. Irony aside, the essay could be categorized as reverse-CBT. Read more about Lukianoff’s idea at the link below: https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-how-good-intentions-and-bad-ideas-are-setting-up-a-generation-for-failure/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/the-coddling-of-the-a...
- maxbond 3y ago
  > True, I can see how “weighty evidence” overstated the weak case presented by the author. You're gloating and high fiving yourself for insulting someone on the internet, in the same breath you're asserting that person isn't well adjusted and needs to go to therapy. I'm not impressed. > Not all tasks can be done with equal efficiency by different people, thus route tasks to where they are most efficiently performed. The author is asserting some people "route" tasks that don't get them promoted to others. Your counter assertion is that those people are more efficient at not getting promoted? > Irony aside, the essay could be categorized as reverse-CBT. This is dangerously close to gaslighting. The author writes about personal experience, and you're asserting it's a product on insufficient therapy or is some kind of anti therapy.
  - adolph 3y ago
    > You're gloating and high fiving yourself for insulting someone on the internet, in the same breath you're asserting that person isn't well adjusted and needs to go to therapy. I'm not impressed. I have insulted no person or thing. This statement appears to be mind-reading itself a straw man. Don’t lie. I did not write that anyone “needs to go to therapy.” If you care to reply, please address the fact that you lied. > The author is asserting some people "route" tasks that don't get them promoted to others. Your counter assertion is that those people are more efficient at not getting promoted? No >This is dangerously close to gaslighting. The author writes about personal experience, and you're asserting it's a product on insufficient therapy or is some kind of anti therapy. Thank you for asserting my off hand comment isn’t some bad thing. Read the linked article describing reverse CBT. If you disagree that the EFT author’s mindset towards work isn’t that of reverse CBT, I look forward to rethinking it.

etrautmann 3y ago

It’s a subjective interpretation that strikes me as fairly strained. It’s clear that Cal Newport would not advocate that, and I highly doubt would support what the author has written. There’s a difference between work that someone else has to do and work that nobody has to do, and I believe Cal was advocating for dropping BS work that nobody needs to do. This may even include entire committees, etc.

maxbond 3y ago
Maybe so, I'm not familiar with Newport, but very few people would advocate for externalizing your costs on to others. I'll take it as a given that Newport wasn't advocating for that (or rather, that Newport would not himself characterize it that way). But I think the argument is that that is the outcome (rather than the intent), even if the task that gets pushed onto others doesn't need to exist. (And this is a different claim than that the author is essentially jumping at shadows, which is fine, I think it's a reasonable take, but that's what I was originally responding to.)

darkerside 3y ago

Labeling this as EFT, comparing it to illegal action, implies that this act is hostile. That implies that Newport is inciting violence.

maxbond 3y ago
What? I think it's pretty clear theft is a metaphor and that no one is suggesting this is illegal. Even if it were, theft is a far cry from inciting violence. Eg if I advocated shoplifting (don't shoplift) I wouldn't be inciting violence, I'd be inciting shoplifting. (Theft by violent means is called robbery.)
- brightlancer 3y ago
  PP said that it was _compared_ to an illegal act, which the author did. > (Theft by violent means is called robbery.) (Legally, that's not accurate.) _Morally_, all theft is violence. Shoplifting a pack of chewing gum is extremely minor, almost zero but it's not zero. Shoplifting also includes the "flash mobs" which run in and steam items, or the folks who walk into stores (e.g. in California) with trash bags and loot as much as they can fit because they know the employees won't touch them and the legal punishment is almost zero.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    I'm open to theft being violence (though skeptical, that seems to elevate property to the moral status of a person), but comparing something to theft isn't in the same universe as incitement to violence. When you say someone has implied that someone else is "inciting violence" I think the comparison has broken down and we're getting into accusation territory. That certainly wasn't what I meant by shoplifting but if I said, "we should all start going to big box stores with trash bags and stealing stuff, because the employees will not resist us and we won't have to fear a physical altercation" (again, don't do that, that's not my real position, you shouldn't steal shit) I don't think that is reasonable to call "inciting violence." Inciting violence is literally calling for people to be hurt or killed. I don't really want to quibble about the precise definition of words, my problem with that comment was that it seemed like an escalation from nowhere, disconnected from what the author was actually arguing for.
    - brightlancer 3y ago
      > Inciting violence is literally calling for people to be hurt or killed. Is taking things that belong to someone else not hurting them? If people steal so much that the business has to close, have the owners been hurt? The employees are now out of jobs -- have they been hurt? Maybe it doesn't force the business to close, they just have to raise prices on everyone else. Or they have to lay one of their employees off. Petty theft is still theft. Small injuries are still injuries. Small violence is still violence.

adolph 3y ago

True, I can see how “weighty evidence” overstated the weak case presented by the author. In the examples of Newport and Ferriss, the author ironically cites the cure for EFT as the problem. At a high level, net value of any task is gross value - effort value. Newport’s point isn’t to not do small tasks but make time for big ones, and if less important tasks fall by the wayside, then better those than significant work. Ferriss’ point is that of Ricardoian economics at a micro level: not all tasks can be done with equal efficiency by different people, thus route tasks to where they are most efficiently performed. Irony aside, the essay could be categorized as reverse-CBT. Read more about Lukianoff’s idea at the link below: https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-how-good-intentions-and-bad-ideas-are-setting-up-a-generation-for-failure/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/the-coddling-of-the-a...

maxbond 3y ago
> True, I can see how “weighty evidence” overstated the weak case presented by the author. You're gloating and high fiving yourself for insulting someone on the internet, in the same breath you're asserting that person isn't well adjusted and needs to go to therapy. I'm not impressed. > Not all tasks can be done with equal efficiency by different people, thus route tasks to where they are most efficiently performed. The author is asserting some people "route" tasks that don't get them promoted to others. Your counter assertion is that those people are more efficient at not getting promoted? > Irony aside, the essay could be categorized as reverse-CBT. This is dangerously close to gaslighting. The author writes about personal experience, and you're asserting it's a product on insufficient therapy or is some kind of anti therapy.
- adolph 3y ago
  > You're gloating and high fiving yourself for insulting someone on the internet, in the same breath you're asserting that person isn't well adjusted and needs to go to therapy. I'm not impressed. I have insulted no person or thing. This statement appears to be mind-reading itself a straw man. Don’t lie. I did not write that anyone “needs to go to therapy.” If you care to reply, please address the fact that you lied. > The author is asserting some people "route" tasks that don't get them promoted to others. Your counter assertion is that those people are more efficient at not getting promoted? No >This is dangerously close to gaslighting. The author writes about personal experience, and you're asserting it's a product on insufficient therapy or is some kind of anti therapy. Thank you for asserting my off hand comment isn’t some bad thing. Read the linked article describing reverse CBT. If you disagree that the EFT author’s mindset towards work isn’t that of reverse CBT, I look forward to rethinking it.