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

You are not your job

jry.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 443 posts

Re: You are not your job

#351

Post by shimman »

scottLobster wrote: post #343
maerF0x0 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, if you've diminished yourself to a generic "consumer", and haven't interleaved yourself into a fabric of value beyond economic. Relationships are worth a lot and can't really be bought. Do/Will you care for someone? Do/Will they care for you? This can make you far more valuable than your economic outputs, and also worth economic inputs if you ever lack.

The ability to care for someone in any material sense requires economic resources. Even having free time is a form of wealth that not all enjoy.

Have you ever organized with your community before? No offense but you come across as a libertarian trying to monetize social relationships. It comes across as deeply human. It also declares that people have no agency, it's just a pathetic view point on humanity and our potential.

To think money is the only thing that is of highest value in our incredibly short lives is a mental sickness.

Re: You are not your job

#352

Post by jplusequalt »

Gareth321 wrote: post #348
jplusequalt wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Prove to me that this value exists. Prove to me it can be measured. To pre-empt your reply, I don't think you can. Why does any of this matter? Do you require a person proves their utility to you before you hold the door open for them? When a child falls and scrapes their knee, do you ask about their grades in school, or parents net worth, before lending them a hand? My point: human society is deeply interwoven with…

> Why does any of this matter? If you're going to make the claim that people hold intrinsic value, people are going to challenge you for proof. Holding a door open for someone and asking questions doesn't necessarily indicate value. It could indicate personal interest. Empathy. Projection. Self-interest. The concept of altruism doesn't necessitate the belief that other life holds value at all. Altruism by its definit…

>If you're going to make the claim that people hold intrinsic value, people are going to challenge you for proof.

But this is assuming we share the same set of axioms?

It sounds like you don't accept humans having intrinsic value as a core axiom. However, I do, and it makes zero sense to me to try and "prove" such a notion.

Re: You are not your job

#353

Post by CodeMage »

abcde666777 wrote: post #319
tvier wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment defines value as what people pay for things, then comes to the conclusion that they way to value people must be based on what people will pay for them. That's not insightful, that's just circular reasoning, and it fails to explain normal human behavior. Does a child have no value to it's parents because it's "easily produced"[1] and "disposable and replaceable"? [1] I imagine OP has never given birth

Just going to poke you a little for the statement about not having children ;). It strikes me as a little elitist and I'll tell you why: You don't need to have had children to have loved people and to have lost people, and to fully understand the depth and weight of those things.

The "not having children" part of the comment was clearly marked as a footnote attached to the quote about how children are "easily produced".

Re: You are not your job

#354

Post by drfloyd51 »

watwut wrote: post #270
sph wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good god, serious life advice targeted at young men (but applicable to anybody) before the manosphere, incels and culture wars took over. Unimaginable stuff today. What a relic.

That article is crating the ground for manosphere, incels and culture wars. It tells the men they have no value and don't really matter as people. Have young men read that article, believe it and you will end up with them joining manosphere, incels and culture wars. Also, it does in fact matter whether a guy is nice.

It matters to me. Therefore I try to be nice. I know it costs me some opportunities and some “success”. But I sleep well at night.

Re: You are not your job

#355

Post by watwut »

thevillagechief wrote: post #323
watwut wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article is crating the ground for manosphere, incels and culture wars. It tells the men they have no value and don't really matter as people. Have young men read that article, believe it and you will end up with them joining manosphere, incels and culture wars. Also, it does in fact matter whether a guy is nice.

I think the article's central point is that being nice is the bare minimum. In fact, probably less than that. If you needed life-saving surgery, it would be great to have a nice surgeon, but you're still going to pick the arrogant surgeon at the top of his field rather than a random nice guy. I will say that I in fact agree that people are innately valuable, but that's more of a philosophical/religious debate here.

I think there might be that aspects, but not really the central point. On the niceness, the article claims that being nice or honest does not matter. And also that they are completely common. Neither are true.

I did not liked the surgery argument either. Of course you should not operate if you do not know how ... but that is issue of overblown ego and arrogance. Not of the niceness. No matter how awesome you are, there will be things you cant do. And framing a guy into as a useless idiot because he is a carpenter rather then surgeon and thus cant operate right there in the street is nonsense. The surgery issue simply wont happen with honest nice guy. That guy will call an ambulance which is certainly better then trying to operate.

Read article again: it literally tell guys that yes, they should be sociopathic and go get some money. That is manosphere in nutshel.

> If you needed life-saving surgery, it would be great to have a nice surgeon, but you're still going to pick the arrogant surgeon at the top of his field

In around about way, the automatic assumption that arrogance = capability did allowed quite a few cranks skate. The manosphere is fully into that point.

Re: You are not your job

#356

Post by altmanaltman »

abcde666777 wrote: post #122

Being able to see ourselves as something beyond our job (our means of survival) is a luxury. If a person can't provide for themselves the rest goes out the window fast. The only way to ease the anxiety in people isn't with fluff about their 'human worth', but rather to help them envision other tangible and plausible ways in which they can provide for themselves. The cold reality, in my opinion, is that the things we…

I mean, if you are willing to sell your personality, humanity and your soul, I am sure you will find a lot of bidders. Thats literally why slavery was a thing.

There is a definite economic value to it. What does not is your consioisness that you experience since nobody else can use it.

Re: You are not your job

#357

Post by sigbottle »

tdeck wrote: post #103
musicale wrote: post #99

> You are not your job. You're a person first. Your ability to connect, be present, and make people feel understood is what makes you irreplaceable to the people around you, which is the only market that counts. True, but losing your job is still a big deal. It often means that you lose your income, your health insurance (in the US at least), many (if not most) of your daily interactions with other people, and your s…

> Your ability to connect, be present, and make people feel understood is what makes you irreplaceable They say this to a group of people that often struggles with all of these but still have managed to make a living off of solving technical problems in the past. Don't worry, you can just fall back on your famously great people skills!

Have you ever had an experience where you objectively were doing something technically complex yet someone dismissed it because it wasn't "relevant" in their eyes?

That's a people skills problem, believe it or not. At the very least, it's a philosophical problem.

Re: You are not your job

#358

Post by Freebytes »

I am often asked "What do you do?" when I meet someone new. I know they are asking about my job, but I throw off the expectations by saying, "Oh, I like to play video games and watch movies primarily." This is usually followed by, "Sorry, I meant what do you do for a living?" I will then, of course, tell them what they expect to hear; however, even the question "What do you do for a living?" implies that we live to work. I play video games and watch movies for living. I work merely to survive and buy the things that allow me to live my life the way I want.

Re: You are not your job

#359

Post by csjh »

Freebytes wrote: post #358

I am often asked "What do you do?" when I meet someone new. I know they are asking about my job, but I throw off the expectations by saying, "Oh, I like to play video games and watch movies primarily." This is usually followed by, "Sorry, I meant what do you do for a living?" I will then, of course, tell them what they expect to hear; however, even the question "What do you do for a living?" implies that we live to w…

maybe it implies some amount of "live to work" etymologically, but the word "living" in that context specifically refers to living in the financial sense (the act of living wouldn't really make sense in that sentence)

you live to play video games and watch movies, but you make a living by working

Re: You are not your job

#360

Post by Mathnerd314 »

tvier wrote: post #316
abcde666777 wrote: post #122

Being able to see ourselves as something beyond our job (our means of survival) is a luxury. If a person can't provide for themselves the rest goes out the window fast. The only way to ease the anxiety in people isn't with fluff about their 'human worth', but rather to help them envision other tangible and plausible ways in which they can provide for themselves. The cold reality, in my opinion, is that the things we…

This comment defines value as what people pay for things, then comes to the conclusion that they way to value people must be based on what people will pay for them. That's not insightful, that's just circular reasoning, and it fails to explain normal human behavior. Does a child have no value to it's parents because it's "easily produced"[1] and "disposable and replaceable"? [1] I imagine OP has never given birth

Well, I mean, you can certainly say economic value doesn't capture all of the value. But you can also say that there are metrics of value that do capture everything. Thermodynamic entropy, for example - its steady march to zero is statistically unstoppable. You can't measure a child's economic value without making a lot of assumptions, but you can measure a child's thermodynamic heat production with a few simple experiments. It might sound a little out there, but I've been looking at the maximum entropy production principle and some books on thermodynamics, and there really is a lot that is applicable to calculations about human systems. Viewing humans as dissipative structures designed to maximize entropy production really explains a lot about how the world works. Notably, some questions about our energy usage patterns. AI may not be useful economically yet, but it's excellent at dissipating heat.
Post reply on HN