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

71–80 of 227 posts

Re: Executive Function Theft

#71

Post by jancsika »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #50
writeslowly wrote: post #24

The author is proposing that these “Workplace EFT” examples need some sort of fix, but I think it’s actual preferable to make the same decision as your coworkers and neglect them until they become a larger problem, since the alternative is taking them on by oneself and growing increasingly resentful that your coworkers don’t prioritize meeting notes or get well cards to the same extent you do. Otherwise, you’re reall…

> neglect them until they become a larger problem, since the alternative is taking them on by oneself and growing increasingly resentful that your coworkers don’t prioritize [stuff] Tangentially, this is a common problem in relationships. "You never do the dishes", "you never do the laundry"... My headcanon for these mismatches is that people have different thresholds of activation. In a relationship, it's useful to…

Translation here may help:

> "You never do the dishes"

means:

You ignore how much more difficult it is to get rid of those little pantry flies, roaches, and/or ants once they find a food/crumb source vs. consistently blocking the impetus for that class of problem to manifest itself. (Or, depending on your locale, perhaps just minimizing that problem as much as possible.)

Moreover, your philosophy of free agency doesn't take into account the resulting increase in your stress level from clutter and lack of clean utensils, and how that increased stress-- probably paired with a reluctance to acknowledge and deal with common stressors generally-- ends up confining your choices in ways that become frustratingly predictable over time. That's not to mention your attempts to hide your disgust when you pick up a dirty plate to reveal mold or wiggling pantry fly eggs, as if denial of an emotion negates the existence of that emotion. And finally, there's the effect that disgust has on your general mood, and even subtle though detectable changes to your opinions given we feeble humans process both physical and conceptual disgust in the same part of our brains.

> "you never do the laundry"...

means:

Pleasant odors and shared work tend to have positive affects on a woman's libido.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#72

Post by namaria »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #19

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…

This is an ad hominen if I ever saw one. You basically disliked the message and felt entitled to condemn the author's personality as immature and used that as the basis to dismiss their opinion as a misunderstanding.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#73

Post by brightlancer »

maxbond wrote: post #64
brightlancer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PP said that it was _compared_ to an illegal act, which the author did. > (Theft by violent means is called robbery.) (Legally, that's not accurate.) _Morally_, all theft is violence. Shoplifting a pack of chewing gum is extremely minor, almost zero but it's not zero. Shoplifting also includes the "flash mobs" which run in and steam items, or the folks who walk into stores (e.g. in California) with trash bags and loo…

I'm open to theft being violence (though skeptical, that seems to elevate property to the moral status of a person), but comparing something to theft isn't in the same universe as incitement to violence. When you say someone has implied that someone else is "inciting violence" I think the comparison has broken down and we're getting into accusation territory. That certainly wasn't what I meant by shoplifting but if I…

> Inciting violence is literally calling for people to be hurt or killed.

Is taking things that belong to someone else not hurting them?

If people steal so much that the business has to close, have the owners been hurt? The employees are now out of jobs -- have they been hurt?

Maybe it doesn't force the business to close, they just have to raise prices on everyone else. Or they have to lay one of their employees off.

Petty theft is still theft. Small injuries are still injuries. Small violence is still violence.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#74

Post by maxbond »

darkerside wrote: post #61
xboxnolifes wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer the advise that we try not to actively design a society that angers people.

Sartre, wise like the Hulk, said "Hell is other people".

Wasn't he also an activist? I imagine he'd also like a society where people aren't unnecessarily frustrated.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#75

Post by jimmaswell »

maxbond wrote: post #70
Aeglaecia wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

personally love it when family asks me for help with computers as its piss easy work that does them a huge favor, you and the author share a perspective that i dont

In the same way that your family has a different capacity for using the computer, other people have a different capacity to field interruptions or to spare their attention. Something that may be pleasant for you might be really taxing for someone else. That doesn't invalidate either experience. In disability advocacy this is sometimes called spoon theory. This is somewhat offtopic but one of my favorite sci-fi short…

I personally had no shortage of ability to do the thing and continue working on my own stuff all day at that age; what made me angry was feeling that my time was needlessly wasted by people who were merely lazy and could figure these very simple things out on their own if they actually tried instead of using me as an escape hatch at the first inkling of uncertainty.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#76

Post by maxbond »

jimmaswell wrote: post #75
maxbond wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the same way that your family has a different capacity for using the computer, other people have a different capacity to field interruptions or to spare their attention. Something that may be pleasant for you might be really taxing for someone else. That doesn't invalidate either experience. In disability advocacy this is sometimes called spoon theory. This is somewhat offtopic but one of my favorite sci-fi short…

I personally had no shortage of ability to do the thing and continue working on my own stuff all day at that age; what made me angry was feeling that my time was needlessly wasted by people who were merely lazy and could figure these very simple things out on their own if they actually tried instead of using me as an escape hatch at the first inkling of uncertainty.

Fair enough, sorry if I was presumptive.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#77

Post by maxbond »

brightlancer wrote: post #73
maxbond wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm open to theft being violence (though skeptical, that seems to elevate property to the moral status of a person), but comparing something to theft isn't in the same universe as incitement to violence. When you say someone has implied that someone else is "inciting violence" I think the comparison has broken down and we're getting into accusation territory. That certainly wasn't what I meant by shoplifting but if I…

> Inciting violence is literally calling for people to be hurt or killed. Is taking things that belong to someone else not hurting them? If people steal so much that the business has to close, have the owners been hurt? The employees are now out of jobs -- have they been hurt? Maybe it doesn't force the business to close, they just have to raise prices on everyone else. Or they have to lay one of their employees off.…

I feel like we're talking across purposes, I'm not here to debate deontology or the definition of violence.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#78

Post by haswell »

brightlancer wrote: post #73
maxbond wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm open to theft being violence (though skeptical, that seems to elevate property to the moral status of a person), but comparing something to theft isn't in the same universe as incitement to violence. When you say someone has implied that someone else is "inciting violence" I think the comparison has broken down and we're getting into accusation territory. That certainly wasn't what I meant by shoplifting but if I…

> Inciting violence is literally calling for people to be hurt or killed. Is taking things that belong to someone else not hurting them? If people steal so much that the business has to close, have the owners been hurt? The employees are now out of jobs -- have they been hurt? Maybe it doesn't force the business to close, they just have to raise prices on everyone else. Or they have to lay one of their employees off.…

> Petty theft is still theft. Small injuries are still injuries. Small violence is still violence.

Agreed. But at no point does theft automatically equate to violence. Theft can be violent. Not all theft is violent.

Equating everything to “violence” is just significantly lowering the resolution and intelligibility of the concept conveyed.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#79

Post by brightlancer »

appplication wrote: post #55
frob wrote: post #15

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.

I have always felt this way about FSAs. They don’t save enough money to feel remotely worth the bureaucracy. Especially because (maybe this is not universal) they don’t carry over year to year like an HSA. So you can actually lose money. Similarly, my work has two options for commuter benefits. Monthly transit passes or like a $20/mo bike credit. The transit passes process automatically and do not accumulate. The bik…

In the US, FSAs are legally constructed to only run for the year (1/1 - 12/31). All of the money is available to you on Jan 1; it's not accrued per paycheck.

If you spend everything in your FSA in January and quit your job, the company has to eat the loss.

(IANAL, blah blah blah)

Re: Executive Function Theft

#80

Post by synecdoche »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #19

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…

My take is that it can be one of two things, either the task is delegated to you by your manager, or it's an attempt to shift the task over by a coworker.

If it's a coworker you can ignore it.

If it's your manager and for whatever reason you deem it unfair, reflect on exactly why, then bring it up with the manager, then see if you can align. If not, start looking for other options.

Whether these things are hard or not, is a different and independent issue. New things in life are usually hard.

Post reply on HN