4 ms·

The individualism correlation with higher remote work is an interesting (weird/suss) one. During peak pandemic there were parallels drawn between areas of high

The individualism correlation with higher remote work is an interesting (weird/suss) one. During peak pandemic there were parallels drawn between areas of high individualism and higher chance of ignoring quarantine, lockdown, and masking laws (or guidelines). This makes logical sense to me: "rules for thee and rules for me" is a very individualist way of looking at things. Meanwhile all the people I know who are more interested in remote work also happen to have been way above average when it comes to following guidelines and (this is an important distinction) not solely for their own wellbeing (ALA collectivism). Anyway - personal observation only, but seems really off to me. Perhaps on average it's still correct and I'm in a fringe bubble! --- Other commenters' mention of introvert vs. Extrovert sparked something: To each type, the others' behaviour can seem selfish (perhaps even to the point of seeming like they're hyper-individualists with no care for the greater good)

kkfx 2y ago
I WFH and my reasons to have ZERO reasons to go to an office are: - being able to live in a nice natural place, with a good climate and so on, not in a dense city; - being able to avoid wasting energy and health to commute, getting myself uselessly busy in such activities; - having a larger market, at least a nationwide one, with more potential competition but also more offers; - being able to evolve. Something I can't do perpetrating past models, that have had very good reasons to be in the past, where doing certain things was needed, but they have no more reasons now; - being MORE social, IRL, separating work and life, instead of navigate a sea of unknowing humans, most of them isolated in the crowd with noise-canceling devices and macrobugs aka smartphones to better avoid the others. I choose a technical path because I want to explore, create something new even if that's happen rarely compared to the ordinary things. Even if it's hard and demand failures and sacrifices. I do not call that individualism vs collectivism I call simply love for tech and science vs love for a certain kind of business. It's an absurd waste of time, energy, health to commute simply because financial capitalism needs to sell ready made ultra-processed food, mobile macro-bugs as status symbols and so on. It's a nonsense build big buildings that we use for less than 12h/day moving all around them for the rest of the time just to be exposed to physicals ads (that's are shop windows, not only physical ads). That's not collectivism because the collective are the flock of sheep, while the shepherds are away and decide. Remember "in 2030 you'll nothing" means that the publisher count to own anything, witch is far from a collective society vs an individualist one.
- pentaphobe 2y ago
  Hard to be sure of course, but from (my perception of) tone I get the impression you've read my comment as somehow opposing the concept of remote work. Wasn't where I was coming from at all. My personal opinions on the matter are skewed as I have worked remotely (home, overseas, or while on the move) for more of my career than not. But that's still personal preference and I'm not going to pretend my opinion is some objective truth. The point I was drilling into in my original comment was something specifically mentioned in the article which I found intriguing: the potentially misleading correlation between societies deemed "individualist" and the fallacious presupposition that one can only be a team player when physically collocated. It's never going to be a simple answer - some people yearn for the open plan office, some wish they had a private office (but still at work), some wish they were at home exclusively. The dangerous thing (which intrigues me just slightly more than it makes me uncomfortable) is when people start saying one way or the other is "right" (or worse, implying that one is selfish and the other selfless) I've my own take, and I could easily make arguments for the opposing view - but far more interested in the meta-conversations than the bluster.
  - kkfx 2y ago
    An ancient Italian proverb state "there is no medal without a backside", or anything have good and bad aspects, however "collectivism vs individualism" it's IMVHO a way to misled, society are groups of individuals who share something, the point might be the ratio between cooperation and competition witch is not the same than collectivism vs individualism because happen at various different levels: two restaurants might compete to earn more customers but also cooperate for or against a law, some changes in the surroundings and so on. There is not much "collectivism vs individualism" in that. Having "the quid" who makes humans doing something even if they dislike it is a classical need of those who rule others, because there are regularly situations where is needed and totally "free" people, specially those who understand less what they are doing and why, might decide not to do something suddenly. The geographical vinculum, the regular physical proximity might help form such "quid", sentiment that push humans to act together, but in a modern world such need is just a sign of incompetent management who fail to "make a team" without certain helpers. Workers are not soldiers and daily work is not a war, any company need a certain environment and slack to compensate various situations without needing such techniques. Companies who operate without that have a bad future and if they perform well now it's just a temporary thing. A society who perform like that is a society doomed to fail quickly anyway. In the end it's not different than those who prefer the office because at home they have unpleasant situations, it's a kind of patch to retard a bit the outcome, not a solution.

kkfx 2y ago

I WFH and my reasons to have ZERO reasons to go to an office are: - being able to live in a nice natural place, with a good climate and so on, not in a dense city; - being able to avoid wasting energy and health to commute, getting myself uselessly busy in such activities; - having a larger market, at least a nationwide one, with more potential competition but also more offers; - being able to evolve. Something I can't do perpetrating past models, that have had very good reasons to be in the past, where doing certain things was needed, but they have no more reasons now; - being MORE social, IRL, separating work and life, instead of navigate a sea of unknowing humans, most of them isolated in the crowd with noise-canceling devices and macrobugs aka smartphones to better avoid the others. I choose a technical path because I want to explore, create something new even if that's happen rarely compared to the ordinary things. Even if it's hard and demand failures and sacrifices. I do not call that individualism vs collectivism I call simply love for tech and science vs love for a certain kind of business. It's an absurd waste of time, energy, health to commute simply because financial capitalism needs to sell ready made ultra-processed food, mobile macro-bugs as status symbols and so on. It's a nonsense build big buildings that we use for less than 12h/day moving all around them for the rest of the time just to be exposed to physicals ads (that's are shop windows, not only physical ads). That's not collectivism because the collective are the flock of sheep, while the shepherds are away and decide. Remember "in 2030 you'll nothing" means that the publisher count to own anything, witch is far from a collective society vs an individualist one.

pentaphobe 2y ago
Hard to be sure of course, but from (my perception of) tone I get the impression you've read my comment as somehow opposing the concept of remote work. Wasn't where I was coming from at all. My personal opinions on the matter are skewed as I have worked remotely (home, overseas, or while on the move) for more of my career than not. But that's still personal preference and I'm not going to pretend my opinion is some objective truth. The point I was drilling into in my original comment was something specifically mentioned in the article which I found intriguing: the potentially misleading correlation between societies deemed "individualist" and the fallacious presupposition that one can only be a team player when physically collocated. It's never going to be a simple answer - some people yearn for the open plan office, some wish they had a private office (but still at work), some wish they were at home exclusively. The dangerous thing (which intrigues me just slightly more than it makes me uncomfortable) is when people start saying one way or the other is "right" (or worse, implying that one is selfish and the other selfless) I've my own take, and I could easily make arguments for the opposing view - but far more interested in the meta-conversations than the bluster.
- kkfx 2y ago
  An ancient Italian proverb state "there is no medal without a backside", or anything have good and bad aspects, however "collectivism vs individualism" it's IMVHO a way to misled, society are groups of individuals who share something, the point might be the ratio between cooperation and competition witch is not the same than collectivism vs individualism because happen at various different levels: two restaurants might compete to earn more customers but also cooperate for or against a law, some changes in the surroundings and so on. There is not much "collectivism vs individualism" in that. Having "the quid" who makes humans doing something even if they dislike it is a classical need of those who rule others, because there are regularly situations where is needed and totally "free" people, specially those who understand less what they are doing and why, might decide not to do something suddenly. The geographical vinculum, the regular physical proximity might help form such "quid", sentiment that push humans to act together, but in a modern world such need is just a sign of incompetent management who fail to "make a team" without certain helpers. Workers are not soldiers and daily work is not a war, any company need a certain environment and slack to compensate various situations without needing such techniques. Companies who operate without that have a bad future and if they perform well now it's just a temporary thing. A society who perform like that is a society doomed to fail quickly anyway. In the end it's not different than those who prefer the office because at home they have unpleasant situations, it's a kind of patch to retard a bit the outcome, not a solution.