5 ms·

What Caroline Ellison's Testimony in SBF Trial Says on Loneliness and Workplace

25 points by harambae 3y ago

sargun 3y ago
I’ve noticed that post 2020 (“pandemic”), that socialization in industry has shifted. I think it has to do with remote work, or the change in employee-employer labor relations. I’ll admit, it’s hurt me a lot, and three years on, I feel like this is the new norm. One of my previous managers used to have a measure of relationship health: can you make arguments at work that piss each other off (due to contentiousness, not assholery), but then get a beer together after work, and just chill. This barometer has almost entirely disappeared, where I had this relationship with most of my coworkers to now just one.
- jen20 3y ago
  Surely the other way around is equally important?
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  By that measure I guess I haven't had good work relationships since I worked in a kitchen in the early 00's, and I'm OK with that.
- notnaut 3y ago
  I worked remote for a few years before the pandemic and the sense of isolation was definitely pervasive. But that’s not because of remote work or remote relationships alone having some inherent isolating quality. Several of my closest friends are people that I only interacted with online for several years before we ever met in person. No isolation there. Many Businesses just aren’t really trying to make that kind of thing work long term. All effort at this point appears to be geared towards the eventual ‘return to normal’ which will probably go away once far more invasive monitoring tools are the new norm!
- programmertote 3y ago
  I'm on the opposite spectrum. I don't like socializing with my coworkers. I keep a respectful and professionally-friendly relationship with them. I have college friends (not many, just 3 who I call close), and a family. That and life's chores/errands are enough to keep me busy when off work. To me, relying on coworkers for companionship is not a sustainable approach because like it or not, we need to switch jobs every 2-4 years (esp. when you are junior or esp. when you are not working at a big tech company for a cushiony/chill role, which might be rare), and there is never enough time to build strong bond with anyone you work. This is also disregarding the office politics, bullcrap/hypocritical things that you see some of your coworkers do once in a while.
  - automatic6131 3y ago
    >I have college friends (not many, just 3 who I call close), and a family. Plus people you share your hobbies with (if you have a social one). This is the way. I like who I work with, but I don't want to socialize with any of them, unless I'm being paid.
  - tnel77 3y ago
    I don’t rely on my coworkers for companionship, but I work eight hours a day. Interacting with people that are “friends” is better to me than interacting with people that are cold and indifferent because they have no interest in being friendly with work colleagues. I don’t want your time after work. I just want to get along and crack a few jokes while the code deploys.
    - vsareto 3y ago
      You can have a lot going on at work that makes people turn to cold and indifferent because they want to get work done and deadlines met. Their mental effort is focused on that because that's the priority. Socializing can be a context switch. If the company continuously keeps the pressure on, they just continue on like that until switching jobs. It would be nice if we had more time to relax and socialize as a reward for getting work done early or at a higher quality but the reward for it is often more work, which will quickly turn people cynical. If you are cynical, socializing is very much a chore even though they know you didn't cause it. Essentially, there is a lot to focus on that prevents people from relaxing and socializing. But profits are up, so yay?
- jquast 3y ago
  I don’t drink, I guess I score pretty poorly on your relationship scale. If you need to have a drink to get through the workday and get along with I’d rather work with anyone else.
  - kfjsalfkj 3y ago
    "Get a beer" is just an expression meaning kick back and relax. Try not to get too outraged over it. Or if you must, substitute a non-alcoholic beer.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      I think they have a roundabout point in that most people would probably automatically exclude them from this sort of who-are-my-work-friends evaluation, possibly without even realizing it.
      - Sirizarry 3y ago
        Nah I think they clearly hyper focused on the beer drinking aspect. My guess is that they consider not drinking a personality trait.
    - sargun 3y ago
      Yeah, often times, it wouldn't actually be getting a beer. It'd usually be going out and getting a coffee. For a while, I'd have coffee runs at 2 or 3 PM and take a walk with people.
- cdchn 3y ago
  "Being able to disagree with a coworker without either party getting pissed" is the litmus test I use.
hardware2win 3y ago
Is this because of social media apps like tiktok and fb?
causi 3y ago
Young people today are more than twice as likely as senior citizens to say they feel lonely I appreciate the level of journalism where the author is reporting the facts instead of assumptions. They say "twice as likely to say they are lonely", not "young people are twice as lonely".
philipwhiuk 3y ago
The takeaways are terrible - encouraging people to double down on workplace friendships, rather than, for example, notifying people about local events in the city or whatever, so that they build stable friendships outside of work. The root of a lot of this is the virtualisation of lots of stuff of course.
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  Indeed. The author claims that >50% of young people report loneliness, and then goes on to suggest that the workplace must take on the responsibility of solving this problem. But of course, no consideration is given to the other ~50% who don't report such problems. Are they going to be forced into some bizarre, far-reaching camaraderie designed or endorsed by the employer? Will this result in cliques? Forced socialization like this, especially with the implied overreach, and run by a corporate entity whose purpose is not to solve your social problems and issues with isolation for you, sounds like a recipe for manipulation, exploitation, and control; the corporate cult. No thanks! And what happens when you get laid off or go to another job? Your social network won't survive the transition. I am not opposed to the idea that people form a healthy social environment at work. If you work at some place for long enough, if not frustrated, a society of familiarity will form. And yes, a certain mission, duty, or responsibility does bring people together, however banal. But all of this looks like people are barking up the wrong tree. It's like expecting your spouse or job to make you happy. That's not their job, and a selfish, vicious, and stupid responsibility to try to dump on someone. With the destruction of family life, the resulting disintegration of community and society, the buying into of a thoroughly ugly, nihilistic, and hedonistic culture that destroys one's very capacity to understand the nature of human relationships and to engage in them in a healthy manner, and given that work takes up most of a person's time, it may become tempting for lost people to try to dump their misplaced grievances and hopes at the feet of their company. But a company is part of society, not a substitute. This will not solve your problems. Companies serve society. Destroy society, and you destroy the raison d'etre of the company. Don't make things worse by trying to be "happy". There is no greater source of human misery than the incessant pursuit of some vague "happiness". No one deserves to be happy. That's entitlement. Focus instead of doing what is objectively good, on the quiet pursuit of excellence. Serve the good of others (and not in some grandiose, virtue signaling, bullshit social media sense, but in many small, quiet, everyday ways, as the part of the very fabric of everyday life). The social connections will follow as societies are built not by the takers, but by givers. Perhaps along the way you will notice the necessity of the transcendent, as the immanent is not just meaningless, but impossible without the bona fide transcendent.
babelthuap 3y ago
[dead]
me_again 3y ago
I raised an eyebrow at "This was a group of idealists... all in pursuit of a higher mission." It's buying into the whole "SBF was just a crazy kid with big dreams who wasn't too great at counting the money" mythos. I don't know any of them personally but "This was a group of scam artists in pursuit of a bigger payout." seems closer to the mark.
- markphip 3y ago
  I couldn't even read the entire article after that ... just skimmed it. Even if they had some kind of believe in crypto tech, in the end it was about getting rich via whatever that would take.
- fidotron 3y ago
  One lesson of the last ten years is the wealthy in the US are stunningly bad at spotting scam artists that appeal to their ideas of what an idealist should look like. Arguably many people have this weakness and merely lack the resources to deploy when it is triggered.
  - tommiegannert 3y ago
    There's an alternative explanation: if you're good enough at convincing me to invest with you, you'll do the same with others. As long as I'm in early, you will make me money, even if I know the house of cards will eventually crumble. By then, I won't be a bag holder. (Probably.) I.e. greed and pride/hubris. The idealist image is just the current behavior that the investor expects will attract subsequent investors. This would explain bubbles much better than "rich people seem to be taking random walks." Edit: A.k.a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory, though my point is it's not driven by foolishness.
    - fidotron 3y ago
      You’re an optimist! I would argue the Sequoia writings about SBF and the farce with Theranos indicates these people actually did believe what they were being sold. I guess one interpretation is Sequoia were the greater fool.
clubm8 3y ago
when you can't be friends at work and everyone outside work is at work as is the case in a service economy, it spirals folks into situations straight out of grimm's fairy tales
johnwheeler 3y ago
Well, your coworkers aren’t really your friends anyway.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thrill 3y ago
Loneliness isn't on trial. Willful gross financial fraud is.
TYPE_FASTER 3y ago
I think being forced to socialize/build relationships outside of work is a benefit of remote work, not a drawback. I say this as somebody who spent way too much time working when younger.

25 points by harambae 3y ago

I’ve noticed that post 2020 (“pandemic”), that socialization in industry has shifted. I think it has to do with remote work, or the change in employee-employer labor relations. I’ll admit, it’s hurt me a lot, and three years on, I feel like this is the new norm. One of my previous managers used to have a measure of relationship health: can you make arguments at work that piss each other off (due to contentiousness, not assholery), but then get a beer together after work, and just chill. This barometer has almost entirely disappeared, where I had this relationship with most of my coworkers to now just one.

jen20 3y ago
Surely the other way around is equally important?
SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
By that measure I guess I haven't had good work relationships since I worked in a kitchen in the early 00's, and I'm OK with that.
notnaut 3y ago
I worked remote for a few years before the pandemic and the sense of isolation was definitely pervasive. But that’s not because of remote work or remote relationships alone having some inherent isolating quality. Several of my closest friends are people that I only interacted with online for several years before we ever met in person. No isolation there. Many Businesses just aren’t really trying to make that kind of thing work long term. All effort at this point appears to be geared towards the eventual ‘return to normal’ which will probably go away once far more invasive monitoring tools are the new norm!
programmertote 3y ago
I'm on the opposite spectrum. I don't like socializing with my coworkers. I keep a respectful and professionally-friendly relationship with them. I have college friends (not many, just 3 who I call close), and a family. That and life's chores/errands are enough to keep me busy when off work. To me, relying on coworkers for companionship is not a sustainable approach because like it or not, we need to switch jobs every 2-4 years (esp. when you are junior or esp. when you are not working at a big tech company for a cushiony/chill role, which might be rare), and there is never enough time to build strong bond with anyone you work. This is also disregarding the office politics, bullcrap/hypocritical things that you see some of your coworkers do once in a while.
- automatic6131 3y ago
  >I have college friends (not many, just 3 who I call close), and a family. Plus people you share your hobbies with (if you have a social one). This is the way. I like who I work with, but I don't want to socialize with any of them, unless I'm being paid.
- tnel77 3y ago
  I don’t rely on my coworkers for companionship, but I work eight hours a day. Interacting with people that are “friends” is better to me than interacting with people that are cold and indifferent because they have no interest in being friendly with work colleagues. I don’t want your time after work. I just want to get along and crack a few jokes while the code deploys.
  - vsareto 3y ago
    You can have a lot going on at work that makes people turn to cold and indifferent because they want to get work done and deadlines met. Their mental effort is focused on that because that's the priority. Socializing can be a context switch. If the company continuously keeps the pressure on, they just continue on like that until switching jobs. It would be nice if we had more time to relax and socialize as a reward for getting work done early or at a higher quality but the reward for it is often more work, which will quickly turn people cynical. If you are cynical, socializing is very much a chore even though they know you didn't cause it. Essentially, there is a lot to focus on that prevents people from relaxing and socializing. But profits are up, so yay?
jquast 3y ago
I don’t drink, I guess I score pretty poorly on your relationship scale. If you need to have a drink to get through the workday and get along with I’d rather work with anyone else.
- kfjsalfkj 3y ago
  "Get a beer" is just an expression meaning kick back and relax. Try not to get too outraged over it. Or if you must, substitute a non-alcoholic beer.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    I think they have a roundabout point in that most people would probably automatically exclude them from this sort of who-are-my-work-friends evaluation, possibly without even realizing it.
    - Sirizarry 3y ago
      Nah I think they clearly hyper focused on the beer drinking aspect. My guess is that they consider not drinking a personality trait.
  - sargun 3y ago
    Yeah, often times, it wouldn't actually be getting a beer. It'd usually be going out and getting a coffee. For a while, I'd have coffee runs at 2 or 3 PM and take a walk with people.
cdchn 3y ago
"Being able to disagree with a coworker without either party getting pissed" is the litmus test I use.

hardware2win 3y ago

Is this because of social media apps like tiktok and fb?

causi 3y ago

Young people today are more than twice as likely as senior citizens to say they feel lonely I appreciate the level of journalism where the author is reporting the facts instead of assumptions. They say "twice as likely to say they are lonely", not "young people are twice as lonely".

philipwhiuk 3y ago

The takeaways are terrible - encouraging people to double down on workplace friendships, rather than, for example, notifying people about local events in the city or whatever, so that they build stable friendships outside of work. The root of a lot of this is the virtualisation of lots of stuff of course.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Indeed. The author claims that >50% of young people report loneliness, and then goes on to suggest that the workplace must take on the responsibility of solving this problem. But of course, no consideration is given to the other ~50% who don't report such problems. Are they going to be forced into some bizarre, far-reaching camaraderie designed or endorsed by the employer? Will this result in cliques? Forced socialization like this, especially with the implied overreach, and run by a corporate entity whose purpose is not to solve your social problems and issues with isolation for you, sounds like a recipe for manipulation, exploitation, and control; the corporate cult. No thanks! And what happens when you get laid off or go to another job? Your social network won't survive the transition. I am not opposed to the idea that people form a healthy social environment at work. If you work at some place for long enough, if not frustrated, a society of familiarity will form. And yes, a certain mission, duty, or responsibility does bring people together, however banal. But all of this looks like people are barking up the wrong tree. It's like expecting your spouse or job to make you happy. That's not their job, and a selfish, vicious, and stupid responsibility to try to dump on someone. With the destruction of family life, the resulting disintegration of community and society, the buying into of a thoroughly ugly, nihilistic, and hedonistic culture that destroys one's very capacity to understand the nature of human relationships and to engage in them in a healthy manner, and given that work takes up most of a person's time, it may become tempting for lost people to try to dump their misplaced grievances and hopes at the feet of their company. But a company is part of society, not a substitute. This will not solve your problems. Companies serve society. Destroy society, and you destroy the raison d'etre of the company. Don't make things worse by trying to be "happy". There is no greater source of human misery than the incessant pursuit of some vague "happiness". No one deserves to be happy. That's entitlement. Focus instead of doing what is objectively good, on the quiet pursuit of excellence. Serve the good of others (and not in some grandiose, virtue signaling, bullshit social media sense, but in many small, quiet, everyday ways, as the part of the very fabric of everyday life). The social connections will follow as societies are built not by the takers, but by givers. Perhaps along the way you will notice the necessity of the transcendent, as the immanent is not just meaningless, but impossible without the bona fide transcendent.

babelthuap 3y ago

[dead]

me_again 3y ago

I raised an eyebrow at "This was a group of idealists... all in pursuit of a higher mission." It's buying into the whole "SBF was just a crazy kid with big dreams who wasn't too great at counting the money" mythos. I don't know any of them personally but "This was a group of scam artists in pursuit of a bigger payout." seems closer to the mark.

markphip 3y ago
I couldn't even read the entire article after that ... just skimmed it. Even if they had some kind of believe in crypto tech, in the end it was about getting rich via whatever that would take.
fidotron 3y ago
One lesson of the last ten years is the wealthy in the US are stunningly bad at spotting scam artists that appeal to their ideas of what an idealist should look like. Arguably many people have this weakness and merely lack the resources to deploy when it is triggered.
- tommiegannert 3y ago
  There's an alternative explanation: if you're good enough at convincing me to invest with you, you'll do the same with others. As long as I'm in early, you will make me money, even if I know the house of cards will eventually crumble. By then, I won't be a bag holder. (Probably.) I.e. greed and pride/hubris. The idealist image is just the current behavior that the investor expects will attract subsequent investors. This would explain bubbles much better than "rich people seem to be taking random walks." Edit: A.k.a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory, though my point is it's not driven by foolishness.
  - fidotron 3y ago
    You’re an optimist! I would argue the Sequoia writings about SBF and the farce with Theranos indicates these people actually did believe what they were being sold. I guess one interpretation is Sequoia were the greater fool.

clubm8 3y ago

when you can't be friends at work and everyone outside work is at work as is the case in a service economy, it spirals folks into situations straight out of grimm's fairy tales

johnwheeler 3y ago

Well, your coworkers aren’t really your friends anyway.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

thrill 3y ago

Loneliness isn't on trial. Willful gross financial fraud is.

TYPE_FASTER 3y ago

I think being forced to socialize/build relationships outside of work is a benefit of remote work, not a drawback. I say this as somebody who spent way too much time working when younger.