9 ms·

you bring up psychology, then completely botch it, just as the study did. >sometimes the interiority-centric framework of psychology seems comically ill-fit fo

you bring up psychology, then completely botch it, just as the study did. >sometimes the interiority-centric framework of psychology seems comically ill-fit for topics like this...thus, people who are long-term unemployed likely feel that they lack control of their lives because this is true. you and the study are not controlling for people who feel they lack control of their lives tending to do a poorer job of finding work, and even doing a poorer job of keeping a job; people whose self esteem is more fragile being more likely to lose their jobs, reinforcing their negative self images: but that's not unemployment doing it (the study does hedge a lot by saying "associated" as if they are not suggesting cause). I'll bet if they had done a Big 5 Factor analysis of the samples in the study we would see lots of clustering, a much more interesting result than what the study found, and Big 5 Factor results are not known to change as the result of unemployment.

anigbrowl 2y ago
It's equally plausible that employers treat people with particular trait cluster poorly, and that eventually they give up on getting abused.
- robomc 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ericjmorey 2y ago
    Probably more likely TBH
- portn0y 2y ago
  [flagged]
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Employees abuse their employers, too.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Not systematically. The power dynamic isn't there.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - kelnos 2y ago
        I spent a little bit of time responding to each of your questions with why I think they're much less harmful to an employer than pretty much anything an employer can do to their employees. But I realized none of that point-by-point stuff really matters, and deleted it all. An employer can systematically destroy an employee's life and finances if they pull the right levers. In places like the US, employees are often terrified of getting fired or laid off because they'll lose their (and often their entire family's) health insurance. Companies use this (and other leverage) to give crap raises, make employees jump through ridiculous hoops to get promoted (and then deny those promotions anyway), "encourage" employees to take the bare minimum (or no) time off, etc. And employees have to eat it all, or risk losing their livelihoods. Let's think about that phrase, "losing your livelihood". The fact that it's a common saying really tells us all we need to know. Employers hold the power. If they're caught doing bad things, usually there little to no penalty. Employees sometimes do sneaky things (all those things that you mention) and eventually get fired and/or sent to prison.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ororroro 2y ago
        For the past 50 years western society has been transitioning from a high-trust, long-term model of employment to a low-trust, immediate payout model. Once that transition starts everyone involved frequently (rightfully) feels betrayed as the sliding trust-reality falls short of their trust-expectation. This presents as abuse and leads everyone to feel justified to commit further abuses. It takes a rarely strong leader to punch through that and re-establish a higher trust baseline and as society continues to move towards zero-trust the strength requirement to maintain that baseline increases. As an employer you either accept that you aren't strong enough to fight it and thus try to stay ahead in how little trust you apply. Or you accept that you will pay a price (in being betrayed more than you betray and inspiring others to join in) to create and defend a higher baseline trust. Knowing how much efficiency is lost in a low-trust environment makes dwelling on this depressing/infuriating. But unless you are a great enough leader to drag a billion people back up to a higher trust baseline, then you need to accept it or go mad in denying it. I mention all this because in a deepening low-trust environment both employees and employers are incentivized to never acknowledge the damage done by this environment as the status quo of who wears the increasing cost of those damages is constantly renegotiated without the stabilization of trustworthy long-term expectations. All of which can surface as threads such as this one.
ericjmorey 2y ago
How would you control for this? How would you control for the opposite? BTW there's a lot of data that shows that it's the opposite of your assumptions that's true.

anigbrowl 2y ago

It's equally plausible that employers treat people with particular trait cluster poorly, and that eventually they give up on getting abused.

robomc 2y ago
[flagged]
- ericjmorey 2y ago
  Probably more likely TBH
portn0y 2y ago
[flagged]
WalterBright 2y ago
Employees abuse their employers, too.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Not systematically. The power dynamic isn't there.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - kelnos 2y ago
      I spent a little bit of time responding to each of your questions with why I think they're much less harmful to an employer than pretty much anything an employer can do to their employees. But I realized none of that point-by-point stuff really matters, and deleted it all. An employer can systematically destroy an employee's life and finances if they pull the right levers. In places like the US, employees are often terrified of getting fired or laid off because they'll lose their (and often their entire family's) health insurance. Companies use this (and other leverage) to give crap raises, make employees jump through ridiculous hoops to get promoted (and then deny those promotions anyway), "encourage" employees to take the bare minimum (or no) time off, etc. And employees have to eat it all, or risk losing their livelihoods. Let's think about that phrase, "losing your livelihood". The fact that it's a common saying really tells us all we need to know. Employers hold the power. If they're caught doing bad things, usually there little to no penalty. Employees sometimes do sneaky things (all those things that you mention) and eventually get fired and/or sent to prison.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ororroro 2y ago
        For the past 50 years western society has been transitioning from a high-trust, long-term model of employment to a low-trust, immediate payout model. Once that transition starts everyone involved frequently (rightfully) feels betrayed as the sliding trust-reality falls short of their trust-expectation. This presents as abuse and leads everyone to feel justified to commit further abuses. It takes a rarely strong leader to punch through that and re-establish a higher trust baseline and as society continues to move towards zero-trust the strength requirement to maintain that baseline increases. As an employer you either accept that you aren't strong enough to fight it and thus try to stay ahead in how little trust you apply. Or you accept that you will pay a price (in being betrayed more than you betray and inspiring others to join in) to create and defend a higher baseline trust. Knowing how much efficiency is lost in a low-trust environment makes dwelling on this depressing/infuriating. But unless you are a great enough leader to drag a billion people back up to a higher trust baseline, then you need to accept it or go mad in denying it. I mention all this because in a deepening low-trust environment both employees and employers are incentivized to never acknowledge the damage done by this environment as the status quo of who wears the increasing cost of those damages is constantly renegotiated without the stabilization of trustworthy long-term expectations. All of which can surface as threads such as this one.

ericjmorey 2y ago

How would you control for this? How would you control for the opposite? BTW there's a lot of data that shows that it's the opposite of your assumptions that's true.