4 ms·

I, for one, appreciate your deliberate and expository introspection but if you need this explained to you, there's a chance you will never—and I mean never—get

by rexpop 3y ago

I, for one, appreciate your deliberate and expository introspection but if you need this explained to you, there's a chance you will never—and I mean never—get it, but here goes: Some people believe that we owe it to one another to be considerate to one another, ie to take responsibility for one another's emotional well-being. Yes, that "underlying idea" is actually quite common in polite society if not outright ubiquitous. In fact, I'm fairly certain that its absence is considered a psychological pathology.

Aeglaecia 3y ago
suffering is inseparable from existence, a man is alone responsible for his own expectations ... those who give freely expect nothing in return
satisfice 3y ago
The same reasonable people who believe that also believe in reasonable limits to taking responsibility for other peoples' emotional well-being. It's not right to cry "theft" as if it is unethical to leave things undone that should not be done by anyone, or as if it is unethical to delegate to people to whom it is in your lawful power to delegate. It is, in a way, EVIL, to call that theft. It trivializes the notion of theft.
- maxbond 3y ago
  > It's not right to cry "theft" as if it is unethical to leave things undone that should not be done by anyone I understand that Newport argues that and tasks shouldn't be done at all, but this is not at all a fair representation of the author's position. > It is, in a way, EVIL, to call that theft. It trivializes the notion of theft. You can critique their rhetoric but "evil" is an overreaction. Indeed, your critique that they are weakening the definition of theft applies to your use of "evil".
forgetfreeman 3y ago
Right, and I'm not arguing it's OK to be a prick at work. But constructing a New Yorker length article to decry behavior that would more reasonably be ignored or shrugged off seems pretty overwrought to me.
- rexpop 3y ago
  So now we're just in disagreement about where these thresholds lie, and I think that's an OK place to disagree, because it will evolve over time with cultural evolution. I don't need to advise you that it's often tactically advantageous exhibit sensitivity to cultural norms. That being said, I would be happy to see us hold one another to higher empathic standards than have been expected in corporate culture for the last century. At least one 2008 research study suggests that Narcissistic Personality Inventory scores were on the rise since 1989[0]--among undoubtedly WEIRD[1] college students. 0. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5342670_Egos_Inflating_Over_Time_A_Cross-Temporal_Meta-Analysis_of_the_Narcissistic_Personality_Inventory https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5342670_Egos_Inflat... 1. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/weird https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/weird
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    All fair points but let's wargame this out a little further. Let's say for the sake of argument cultural norms are drifting towards infantile behavior. We good or at some point does someone pump the brakes?

by rexpop 3y ago

Aeglaecia 3y ago

suffering is inseparable from existence, a man is alone responsible for his own expectations ... those who give freely expect nothing in return

satisfice 3y ago

The same reasonable people who believe that also believe in reasonable limits to taking responsibility for other peoples' emotional well-being. It's not right to cry "theft" as if it is unethical to leave things undone that should not be done by anyone, or as if it is unethical to delegate to people to whom it is in your lawful power to delegate. It is, in a way, EVIL, to call that theft. It trivializes the notion of theft.

maxbond 3y ago
> It's not right to cry "theft" as if it is unethical to leave things undone that should not be done by anyone I understand that Newport argues that and tasks shouldn't be done at all, but this is not at all a fair representation of the author's position. > It is, in a way, EVIL, to call that theft. It trivializes the notion of theft. You can critique their rhetoric but "evil" is an overreaction. Indeed, your critique that they are weakening the definition of theft applies to your use of "evil".

forgetfreeman 3y ago

Right, and I'm not arguing it's OK to be a prick at work. But constructing a New Yorker length article to decry behavior that would more reasonably be ignored or shrugged off seems pretty overwrought to me.

rexpop 3y ago
So now we're just in disagreement about where these thresholds lie, and I think that's an OK place to disagree, because it will evolve over time with cultural evolution. I don't need to advise you that it's often tactically advantageous exhibit sensitivity to cultural norms. That being said, I would be happy to see us hold one another to higher empathic standards than have been expected in corporate culture for the last century. At least one 2008 research study suggests that Narcissistic Personality Inventory scores were on the rise since 1989[0]--among undoubtedly WEIRD[1] college students. 0. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5342670_Egos_Inflating_Over_Time_A_Cross-Temporal_Meta-Analysis_of_the_Narcissistic_Personality_Inventory https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5342670_Egos_Inflat... 1. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/weird https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/weird
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  All fair points but let's wargame this out a little further. Let's say for the sake of argument cultural norms are drifting towards infantile behavior. We good or at some point does someone pump the brakes?