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

221–227 of 227 posts

Re: Executive Function Theft

#221

Post by rexpop »

ehnto wrote: post #111
rexpop wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you gain is a lawn, mowed.

Sure. Relevant to this discussion though, you also don't lose the time it takes to mow it yourself, and are now able to focus on other tasks. We aren't talking about the economics of the situation, it's about the impact of meanial tasks on time and mental capacity. Perhaps a better example is when a manager delegates tasks, which is what the article is ultimately complaining about. No money changes hands. The manager…

> the article is ultimately complaining about [when a manager delegates tasks]

I am sorry, but I re-read the article and still cannot understand why you believe this. The author gives three major examples:

1. Customer EFT: "sitting on hold with the company that manages my health flexible spending account"

2. Workplace EFT: "they see a need to be filled or have been asked or tasked with taking on more"

3. Household EFT: "Having a husband creates an extra seven hours a week of housework for women."

You seem to be interpreting the article as primarily about #2, Workplace EFT, and furthermore about one facet of workplace political dynamics, namely command hierarchy.

I'll allow that command hierarchies are nominally the principal aspect of a corporation, but one of the author's goals, I believe, is to shed light on the dynamics surrounding and running obliquely to that aspect. She takes pains to emphasize the gendered and allegedly random way "those tasks so often fall to the same group of people". The tasks about which the author complains are explicitly not those within one's job title and/or line of duty but, rather, the surreptitious assignment of service to which the employee did not explicitly consent when taking the job but now "feel they cannot turn down".

Long story short, I am a little blown away with your assertion that "the article is ultimately complaining about" something which is at the most tangential to the article's subject and possibly even--as in my interpretation--deliberately not being addressed.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#222

Post by namaria »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #205
namaria wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not convinced. Coworkers aren't friends, family, or therapists. They're (hopefully) present to do a job and go home, same as you.

The fact that a big chunk of romantic partnerships and friendships start in the workplace among co-workers tells me a quick cynical dismissal of co-workers as a shallow and single dimensional relationship is not very insightful.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#223

Post by satisfice »

projectileboy wrote: post #197
satisfice wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's NOT injustice. That is entirely made up by the author. What agreement or law has been broken?

That’s a fair point. I would say the agreement that has been broken is an implicit social contract (in the sense of Rousseau) that people should share the burdens of society to make society function, and that individuals should do the work that would most appropriately be their responsibility.

We have established ways of sharing the burdens of social life. This burden sharing is already happening. We negotiate it in real time. I personally began pushing back on certain norms of politeness at age 5. I became labeled as a troublemaker. That’s the price one pays for bucking the system. But it’s not a terrible price.

The author is unhappy with the social order, which is fine. Her error and transgression is in the misappropriation of the concept of “theft.” That is an important concept. We use it to keep order.

It’s like someone pulling a fire alarm to report that she feels really hot.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#224

Post by satisfice »

fnimick wrote: post #108
satisfice wrote: post #66

What the author calls theft is neither theft, nor any other for of unethical behavior, as far as I can tell from her description. I could just as easily say that she has committed theft of my attention span because I had to read her ill-considered opinion in order to fairly criticize it. But I won't say that, because it was my choice to do so and I am not a victim. She seems to be trying to criminalize the ordinary b…

So when an employee shunts a task off onto a coworker abusing their agreeableness, you're saying that other coworker deserves it and that the first employee is morally justified because they haven't "put in the energy" to be assertive in a hostile working relationship?

One answer: You are responsible for your agreeableness. Your agreeableness is an OFFER to the people around you. Stop making offers that you resent honoring.

Another equally valid answer: If I care about you, and to the degree I care about you, I willingly modify my behavior to help you live better and more happily, regardless of the how you may deserve or not deserve it.

My wife is one of those people who will work themselves to the point of collapse without complaining. I have to be careful what I ask for because she will assign herself secret tasks to provide it. I don’t lecture her on how she deserves her misery, I remind her that I am the only person around here who swore an oath to help her, and she should ask me for what she wants and expect me to provide it. Then I try to volunteer when I see her working at something I can do. And I try to make myself easy to approach. After 32 years we have a pretty good understanding— but her endurance is worsening over time and so there are new challenges.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#226

Post by forgetfreeman »

namaria wrote: post #222
forgetfreeman wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced. Coworkers aren't friends, family, or therapists. They're (hopefully) present to do a job and go home, same as you.

The fact that a big chunk of romantic partnerships and friendships start in the workplace among co-workers tells me a quick cynical dismissal of co-workers as a shallow and single dimensional relationship is not very insightful.

Conversely viewing your coworkers as a massive extended dating pool suggests to me a level of social desperation that's hardly worthy of discussion much less serious consideration. That relationships form at work isn't in question, that's not the point of the exercise however.

Re: Executive Function Theft

#227

Post by forgetfreeman »

rexpop wrote: post #220
forgetfreeman wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and I'm not arguing it's OK to be a prick at work. But constructing a New Yorker length article to decry behavior that would more reasonably be ignored or shrugged off seems pretty overwrought to me.

So now we're just in disagreement about where these thresholds lie, and I think that's an OK place to disagree, because it will evolve over time with cultural evolution. I don't need to advise you that it's often tactically advantageous exhibit sensitivity to cultural norms. That being said, I would be happy to see us hold one another to higher empathic standards than have been expected in corporate culture for the l…

All fair points but let's wargame this out a little further. Let's say for the sake of argument cultural norms are drifting towards infantile behavior. We good or at some point does someone pump the brakes?
Post reply on HN