4 ms·

People are under no obligation to be curious about anything in particular. Sure, there probably is some explanation to be found for why the 345th gear in the c

People are under no obligation to be curious about anything in particular. Sure, there probably is some explanation to be found for why the 345th gear in the contraption improves the target production metric by 0.013% and some theory as to why that difference meaningfully impacts some member of society for 34 seconds on Tuesdays in May on odd numbered years. And sure, those who are curious to find that may be fascinated by it or may find some emotional grounding for the work they find themselves doing. But it's not especially tragic, and can sometimes be personally and societally valuable, to step back and look at that whole situation from further away and just say "Fuck it, I/they/we must be able to do something more than whatever that is" That's really all the antropoligic and oral history view of a "bullshit job" is

llamaimperative 2y ago
> I/they/we must be able to do something more than whatever that is How can you possibly make that claim unless you understand what they're doing, and how can you understand what they're doing unless you're earnestly curious about it?
- bryant 2y ago
  > how can you understand what they're doing unless you're earnestly curious about it? The implied relationship between the two things mentioned here doesn't actually exist. It's perfectly possible to understand a system without ever being curious about it. E.g: 1) when food depends on it 2) when absorbed via osmosis or a byproduct of curiosity about an entirely unrelated topic. I have a robust understanding of quite a number of topics that I can promise you I've never been curious to learn anything about. I just soak it up like a sponge. Curiosity certainly helps. But to suggest that curiosity is a foundational requirement for understanding something misses the forest for the trees.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Sure. Neither (1) nor (2) will help you discern which jobs are bullshit and which are not.
prepend 2y ago
> People are under no obligation to be curious about anything in particular. I disagree. I think curiosity is the key ingredient to a successful and productive career as well as life. An inherent wanting to know separate from being paid is very important. Of course, it’s not an obligation like everyone must. People are free to suck and no one will force them to succeed. I think I’m just cynical from interacting with youngsters saying “they don’t pay me enough to care.” I think the caring comes first, then the pay. And you can’t pay someone enough to love a thing.
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
  mmm. I'm the exact opposite. My job is interesting, valuable and often quite challenging. And if they stopped paying me, I'd stop showing up. I care because I'm paid to. Otherwise, why bother?
  - prepend 2y ago
    Of course I don’t work for free. But I’m curious, not because they pay me. If they paid me more or less, I’d still be curious.
golergka 2y ago
> People are under no obligation to be curious about anything in particular. Anthropologists who write books that become culture memes should be under this obligation.
Nifty3929 2y ago
Curiosity is no requirement of course, but at least an understanding of the limits of one's own knowledge and authority on a subject is desirable. Sometimes things other people do don't make sense to me, and seem like they could be improved. So I can: 1. Assume they are doing it wrong. 2. Assume they are doing it correctly for reasons I'm not privy to, at least by their own assessment, incentives and constraints, and dig no further. 3. Do #2, and then allow my curiosity to lead me to uncover their reasons and motivations. I don't like #1, but numbers 2 and 3 seem like reasonable choices.

llamaimperative 2y ago

> I/they/we must be able to do something more than whatever that is How can you possibly make that claim unless you understand what they're doing, and how can you understand what they're doing unless you're earnestly curious about it?

bryant 2y ago
> how can you understand what they're doing unless you're earnestly curious about it? The implied relationship between the two things mentioned here doesn't actually exist. It's perfectly possible to understand a system without ever being curious about it. E.g: 1) when food depends on it 2) when absorbed via osmosis or a byproduct of curiosity about an entirely unrelated topic. I have a robust understanding of quite a number of topics that I can promise you I've never been curious to learn anything about. I just soak it up like a sponge. Curiosity certainly helps. But to suggest that curiosity is a foundational requirement for understanding something misses the forest for the trees.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Sure. Neither (1) nor (2) will help you discern which jobs are bullshit and which are not.

prepend 2y ago

> People are under no obligation to be curious about anything in particular. I disagree. I think curiosity is the key ingredient to a successful and productive career as well as life. An inherent wanting to know separate from being paid is very important. Of course, it’s not an obligation like everyone must. People are free to suck and no one will force them to succeed. I think I’m just cynical from interacting with youngsters saying “they don’t pay me enough to care.” I think the caring comes first, then the pay. And you can’t pay someone enough to love a thing.

HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
mmm. I'm the exact opposite. My job is interesting, valuable and often quite challenging. And if they stopped paying me, I'd stop showing up. I care because I'm paid to. Otherwise, why bother?
- prepend 2y ago
  Of course I don’t work for free. But I’m curious, not because they pay me. If they paid me more or less, I’d still be curious.

golergka 2y ago

> People are under no obligation to be curious about anything in particular. Anthropologists who write books that become culture memes should be under this obligation.

Nifty3929 2y ago

Curiosity is no requirement of course, but at least an understanding of the limits of one's own knowledge and authority on a subject is desirable. Sometimes things other people do don't make sense to me, and seem like they could be improved. So I can: 1. Assume they are doing it wrong. 2. Assume they are doing it correctly for reasons I'm not privy to, at least by their own assessment, incentives and constraints, and dig no further. 3. Do #2, and then allow my curiosity to lead me to uncover their reasons and motivations. I don't like #1, but numbers 2 and 3 seem like reasonable choices.