Executive Function Theft • Hacker News Board

Re: Executive Function Theft

#151

Post by blueboo » Sun, Aug 20, 2023, 1:10 PM UTC

LostLetterbox2 wrote: post #110

I find it funny that the author suggests that husbands have more time for hobbies and friends; I don't know about hobbies but male friendship has been in decline for a long time now... The EFT framing is a good model but the gendered arguments need much more nuance than is offered in this piece. I also wonder how much the higher standards plays a part in this kind of thing. If person A believes tasks like vacuuming n…

> If person A believes tasks like vacuuming need to occur weekly, and person B believes they need to occur bi-weekly then person B will either suffer an emotional tax for not having their expectations met or an EFT managing their preferred outcome with some form of nagging.

Oh dear. No two people have identical preferences across all household management tasks. Does that doom us to “emotional taxes” or “executive function theft”?

Of course not!! People who live together come to an agreement about the things that matter to them.

However this is easier said than done: It is not trivial to surface all these issues, and issues un-surfaced do indeed fall into the pathological dichotomy above.

To that end, (and in particular for working parents) I heartily recommend Fair Play by Eve Rodsky and the process it describes. It’s not easy to identify and mitigate all these deltas, and submitting to the books guidance mitigates the formidable cognitive load of the process.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#152

Post by hinkley » Sun, Aug 20, 2023, 1:13 PM UTC

t-writescode wrote: post #14

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 ha…

They have too high a tolerance. It can take a long time to convince them of what any observer can see. That they are doing a lot of busy or low quality work that simply amplifies the busy or low quality work in the future.

People who tolerate it create the Red Queen Problem that kills so many projects. It’s the people who don’t tolerate that shit that put a stop to it.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#153

Post by tom_ » Sun, Aug 20, 2023, 1:16 PM UTC

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?

That's a question you'll have to answer yourself. Don't ask us to decide for you!

Re: Executive Function Theft

#154

Post by taneq » Sun, Aug 20, 2023, 1:25 PM UTC

There's a couple of related forms of interaction, more common in close interpersonal relationships, that I'd term 'Executive Function Sabotage'. The first form is where one party routinely interrupts the other party any time they choose to do something. Whether it's requesting they work on something else, or just demanding their attention by talking to them repeatedly, the common factor is that it's reliably triggered by the second party initiating some kind of focused activity unrelated to the first party.

The second form is where one party requests that the other party perform a task, then inevitably finds fault with the outcome no matter how accurately or effectively the task is done.

Both of these can lead over time to a form of learned helplessness where any initiative is suppressed because any self-originated action is treated as wrong. Eventually the victim gives up and becomes incapable of any real volition.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#155

Post by literalbatshit » Sun, Aug 20, 2023, 1:40 PM UTC

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #135

I understand the idea, but I'm somewhat confused by the way it's framed. Negotiating what you spend your executive function on is part of navigating reality. People can exercise agency here. You can say "no" to most of these tasks and there will be zero effect. Most of the time people don't actually care that much about these tasks getting done, they're just nice-to-haves. I also disagree with the framing of it in th…

This article to a large extent exemplifies the popularization of a culture in which I am expected to understand and make accommodation for your needs and desires at all times, instead of you exercising your own agency and dealing with your own shit.

This culture then dresses up this mindset in loaded terms like “emotional labor” and “executive function theft” to make it more reasonable (and to make those that disagree look more unreasonable) but it’s all bullshit.

If you don’t want to send emails, find another job, or change your own job. If you don’t want to do the dishes, find another partner, or demand they change (and be prepared for them to leave instead).

But rather than this, the proponents of this culture demonize all those who disagree with them. Their arguments and approaches are intentionally not rational, and are instead emotional, precisely because they require everyone else to not engage with life and their own happiness rationally.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#156

Post by abdulhaq » Sun, Aug 20, 2023, 1:46 PM UTC

csydas wrote: post #129

mock-possum wrote: post #123

This is real difficult for me to empathize with - I think I get what the issue is, and it’s just not an issue for me. How is it an issue for others??

I can appreciate that, but let me share my experience at a position I had as I've dealt with this a lot and the work became untenable. The team I lead is pretty good, not perfect of course, but we tend to get the desired results and even more for the most important clients/issues, and we do pretty well with clients on the soft-skills side, so clients typically like the team I work with. While this seems like we'd be…

set aside 10% of your team's time to do these unwanted jobs. Say yes to the bulk of them but explain that it will take a long time to complete the task. Ignore all complaints that these tasks are taking too long. If they complain to senior management then give senior management the choice, you either do your main task or you do these unwanted tasks - their choice.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#157

Post by escapedmoose » Sun, Aug 20, 2023, 1:47 PM UTC

haswell wrote: post #43

> I will admit to never having been able to read Cal Newport’s Deep Work all the way through — I got too irritated — but I would point to his dismissive naming of the idea of “shallow work”, which he defines as logistical and often repetitive tasks, such as writing short emails. Newport recommends entirely stopping or poorly performing that work; I read this as encouraging readers to commit EFT against others around…

I’ve never read the book. Can you briefly summarize how the author expects shallow tasks to be dealt with, if not offloaded to another person?

Re: Executive Function Theft

#158

Post by chomp » Sun, Aug 20, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

MatthiasPortzel wrote: post #6

The definition uses "abdication...to" which I don't think is correct. I think the author means "delegation...to."

Well also the author is abusing the term “executive function” here, so not the only odd thing in the article. The reason they’ve never seen the phrase “EFT” is because it’s a nonsense term.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#159

Post by Viliam1234 » Sun, Aug 20, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

IdAugmentation wrote: post #133

Viliam1234 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I hear a correlation expressed as causation, I try to turn it around to check whether it makes more sense that way. "If you believe that ego depletion is real, you experience it." -- wow, sounds spooky, fascinating if true "If you experience ego depletion, you believe that it is real." -- yes thank you, Captain Obvious To me it seems like different people have different capacity for making decisions (that's kind…

Fair point, but I don't think it's quite clear what I'm getting at. I think most people sometimes have the sensation that they want to turn off their brain and just do nothing. The picture ego depletion paints is that a) this is caused by making decisions and b) there is nothing to be done about it. I don't think either of those is true. Some decisions might be stressful and they could certainly contribute, but choos…

I agree that it is not the number of decisions, but how stressful they are. And if you have control of the environment, you could e.g. make some processes less stressful.

> Some decisions might be stressful and they could certainly contribute, but choosing what's for dinner is not in that category.

Ah, depends on whether one has an autistic child that has a tantrum whenever the dinner does not fit their unclearly communicated criteria. Then it can easily be the most stressful task of the day. :D

Generally, I'd like to push back against that "most people sometimes have the sensation" part, because that's basically true for everything. (Depression? Most people sometimes feel sad. Dyslexia? Most people sometimes make a mistake when reading.) That's the point of some mental problems that yes, most people experience it sometimes in an extreme situation, but unfortunately you experience it every day. And the people who experience it only once in a while are happy to provide you advice about what works for them, assuming that it must automatically work the same for you, or you are just lazy and not trying hard enough.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#160

Post by giantg2 » Sun, Aug 20, 2023, 1:53 PM UTC

"Is their decision-making ability wholly captured in those tasks while the other person is getting to relax or to plan a project?"

It sounds like they think projects are fun or something. Just one more thing in a long list of other chores and projects that have to get done. Of course a large project is composed of many smaller decisions. This plus the rampant gender stereotyping and bias (no mention of stereotypical men's work) makes me highly suspect of the statements they are making, or at least the way they are making them. Sure, people get burnt out with all the invisible work, but isn't that everyone?

Also, the author is hardcore cherry picking data.

"Excluded from these “core” housework hours were tasks like gardening, home repairs, or washing the car."

That's from the Michigan study. So no shit if you exclude maintenence duties that were stereotypical men's work they do less "work around the house". The whole point of the book they mention (if you cut through its BS and bias) is that there's a total bucket of work, that would should be equally divided, and that it shouldn't just default based on gender but be decided on an individual basis. Seems like a straightforward argument. Perhaps if we stop promoting the emotional and biased presentation of these arguments it would be better recieved. Nobody wants the hear that they've been victimizing their wife based on a generalized stereotype (I'm talking about how the studies are being applied/argued).