4 ms·

Your reference to "barking orders" shows a major misunderstanding. The demands we face may not be simply barked orders. They may instead be reasonable requests

Your reference to "barking orders" shows a major misunderstanding. The demands we face may not be simply barked orders. They may instead be reasonable requests to work on the tasks assigned in the sprint, rather than helping out a random coworker whenever the whim strikes. Or to work on a test during the allotted time so you can get a good grade. Both are demands, and both are problems for a person with poor executive control. You may well be right that a neurotypical person who simply follows barked orders is doing damage to their executive control. I have no opinion on that. I just know that doing so consistently requires more executive control than I have. That said, you have a point that I find it outrageous when people fall into ranks behind stupid authority. Particularly when I know that the people doing so should know better. I intellectually know what's going on. But my natural emotional response against it is pretty strong.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 3y ago
I was talking about "hard" authority that one cannot really avoid, because at this point in my life that's what I think of when I hear the word authority. By adulthood it feels "soft" authority relationships are much more opt-in (even if calling them full choices is somewhat fallacious). So I'm not respecting soft authorities simply because they're "authority" but rather because I've personally decided that their direction is reasonable in service of some larger goal. I didn't mean to say that someone following barked orders is actively damaging their executive control, but rather saying that if the barked orders are directly affecting the prioritization of their executive control, then in a sense that control has already been damaged. Executive control and obedience to authority should really be seen as orthogonal aspects, and I'd say conflating the two is a shortcut preferred by those seeking the easy route of authoritarianism (eg a schoolteacher wondering why a "problem kid" doesn't "behave" when attempting to make them sit still for hours on end) Those are two clarifications. I feel there is definitely some constructive synthesis here but can't quite wrap my head around it right now.
- mindslight 3y ago
  Ruminating on this today - I think it runs even deeper than what I've said, even for "soft" authority. We're all familiar with the archetype of the person who had overbearing parents giving them strong direction, and then has a harder time in the real world without this direction. That's a case where over-reliance on deferring to authority ends up destroying independent executive function. It's also a little weird to me to assert a dichotomy between "executive control" and "want to", when the two seem quite tied. Sure, we all use the rhetorical device of saying we have to do something that we "don't want to", but fundamentally we generally do actually want to do those things, but based on larger non-immediate concerns as opposed to immediate enjoyment.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mindslight 3y ago

I was talking about "hard" authority that one cannot really avoid, because at this point in my life that's what I think of when I hear the word authority. By adulthood it feels "soft" authority relationships are much more opt-in (even if calling them full choices is somewhat fallacious). So I'm not respecting soft authorities simply because they're "authority" but rather because I've personally decided that their direction is reasonable in service of some larger goal. I didn't mean to say that someone following barked orders is actively damaging their executive control, but rather saying that if the barked orders are directly affecting the prioritization of their executive control, then in a sense that control has already been damaged. Executive control and obedience to authority should really be seen as orthogonal aspects, and I'd say conflating the two is a shortcut preferred by those seeking the easy route of authoritarianism (eg a schoolteacher wondering why a "problem kid" doesn't "behave" when attempting to make them sit still for hours on end) Those are two clarifications. I feel there is definitely some constructive synthesis here but can't quite wrap my head around it right now.

mindslight 3y ago
Ruminating on this today - I think it runs even deeper than what I've said, even for "soft" authority. We're all familiar with the archetype of the person who had overbearing parents giving them strong direction, and then has a harder time in the real world without this direction. That's a case where over-reliance on deferring to authority ends up destroying independent executive function. It's also a little weird to me to assert a dichotomy between "executive control" and "want to", when the two seem quite tied. Sure, we all use the rhetorical device of saying we have to do something that we "don't want to", but fundamentally we generally do actually want to do those things, but based on larger non-immediate concerns as opposed to immediate enjoyment.