Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Executive Function Theft

hedgehoglibrarian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 227 posts

Re: Executive Function Theft

#11

Post by maxbond »

steve_taylor wrote: post #7
t-writescode wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s power in the word “theft” that doesn’t exist in “denial of service”. Theft implies taking something that isn’t yours to take, which appropriately shames the perpetrator of their actions.

Shaming someone is more important than the truth. Why am I not surprised anymore?

Theft is a reasonable interpretation of denial of service. You may disagree (which is also reasonable), that doesn't make it a lie. This is a disagreement about what label to apply, the existence of this phenomenon hasn't (at time of writing and in this subthread) been disputed.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#13

Post by maxbond »

adolph wrote: post #5

Newport recommends entirely stopping or poorly performing that work; I read this as encouraging readers to commit EFT against others around them. When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When writing a jeremiad, anything becomes weighty evidence.

That's pretty unfair. They never said it was evidence let alone weighty evidence, they offered examples of where they see this phenomenon in their life and in our culture. This is clearly a subjective interpretation/critique of another text ("I read this as"). That's perfectly reasonable to include in a blog post primarily about personal experience.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#14

Post by t-writescode »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #9

The fallacy here is assuming planning something is draining or bad for you. It more has to do with how much you enjoy the thing. I think couples have arguments about the thing neither of them wants to do. But if one enjoys planning the holiday for example they will just do it and it wont feel like EFT. I definitely get bank EFT (pun not intended), I deal with this by having recurring todos with all the links and stuf…

> The fallacy here is assuming planning something is draining or bad for you.

Executive Function is a term commonly thrown around in the autistic and ADHD spaces. When read in that context, it makes a *lot* more sense.

From what I hear, neurotypical people have a much higher tolerance for bullshit work and wasteful process. I wouldn't know what that feels like. Beyond 1 or 2 wasted steps and I get mad that someone has designed a process that's actively hostile to its users.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#15

Post by frob »

On a side note, the author's example is exactly why I have chosen to not use FSAs. Sure, it saves me 20% or so since it's pre-tax money, but is my stress, time, executive function, and sanity all worth that? Plus if I screw up and don't spend the money or file something wrong, I lose it or pay penalties.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#16

Post by eyelidlessness »

jacknews wrote: post #2

It's not really theft though, since the 'thief' doesn't gain the thing being 'stolen'. It's only the 'deny use' half of 'theft', ie it's more like DoS.

Don’t they? This part of the article stood out and rung true to me:

> The thief has chosen to prioritize their executive function over another person’s and, having found that this makes their lives easier, repeats this behavior unless it is disrupted.

(Emphasis added.) By imposing the executive function-depleting responsibility onto others, they reserve EF capacity of their own which they wouldn’t otherwise specifically by extracting that cost from others.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#17

Post by brutusborn »

adolph wrote: post #5

Newport recommends entirely stopping or poorly performing that work; I read this as encouraging readers to commit EFT against others around them. When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When writing a jeremiad, anything becomes weighty evidence.

To save others a google, Jeremiad: a long, mournful complaint or lamentation; a list of woes.

This description fits very well.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#19

Post by forgetfreeman »

I had a pretty strong negative reaction when reading this and had to sit with it a while to figure out why. I kept coming back to the idea that something about this seems childish to me without initially being able to articulate what, exactly, it was that seemed immature. After I'd had some time to thing on it it occurred to me that the underlying idea is that people are somehow responsible for the author's emotional well-being, that they are somehow owed something, or that perhaps they simply deeply misunderstand work relationships.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#20

Post by jacknews »

rexpop wrote: post #10
jacknews wrote: post #2

It's not really theft though, since the 'thief' doesn't gain the thing being 'stolen'. It's only the 'deny use' half of 'theft', ie it's more like DoS.

It's not only denial of use. The perpetrator gains the output of the delegated effort. The sale goes through. The business continues to operate. Paychecks get signed. The home's functionality is maintained. When the "non-promotable work" of a firm, community, or family gets done "the rising tide raises all boats" if that work is necessary for the organization's profitability and/or autopoiesis. I am confused as to ho…

Your example is not what's claimed.

In your analogy, it would be more like I'd contacted the housing association to force you to mow your driveway, denying you the time to properly manicure your lawn. I'm not gaining any improvement to my lawn in that case.

Post reply on HN