4 ms·
> Otherwise only those that master talking will get exposure. Or maybe we shouldn't organize our society so that "exposure" is such an overwhelmingly positive
by enriquto 3y ago
> Otherwise only those that master talking will get exposure.
Or maybe we shouldn't organize our society so that "exposure" is such an overwhelmingly positive thing.
- hiatus 3y agoExposure, as I understand it, is becoming known to more people. I can't see how society, which is predicated on interpersonal relationships, could be organized to dissuade increasing your renown.
- trealira 3y agoPerhaps with some sort of score that rewarded accomplishing things more than just talking about them. Then you could look at someone's score and trust that they've accomplished more. Seems meritocratic, but also somewhat dystopian, honestly.
- jmathai 3y agoI’ve trended in the opposite direction. I don’t particularly enjoy taking about any successes I may have had and I don’t care to make sure others (including in the company I work at) are aware. It’s not great for career progression. But I actually don’t care about that. So instead of playing that game I play one I actually care about which looks very different than one where exposure matters.
- bruce343434 3y agoThere's only so much you can do. If someone isn't advertising themselves, they can not be expected to be found in a sea of people who do. If I solve the navier stokes equations or whatever, but never talk about it... Yeah. Who would know. How could they know? Tree, woods, sound.
- enriquto 3y agoIf you solve the Navier Stokes equations, you'll give a couple interviews at some local media and then keep working in other problems. The director of your lab will not make a career for himself talking about your achievment. Some exposure is of course necessary, but when it becomes the main driving force it turns ridiculous.