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

The three year myth

green.spacedino.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 191 posts

Re: The three year myth

#111

Post by svilen_dobrev »

jtrn wrote: post #54

For anybody that is interested in a clinical psychologist's take, here is mine… This article triggers an overwhelming feeling that something is missing in the story. Of course, being fired is genuinely painful, and the author's emotional state is understandable. But I think there is a much better way to understand this situation that would be beneficial to the author. Please note that this is just a guess, and in rea…

... personal psychology aside (btw somehow i have never seen anyone taking on the top-winners but anyway)

but what i see, organisational-health-wise, is a way-too-long and totally broken communication chain. A Director presents a vision and does not communicate it to related/interested internal parties, someone on the floor invents something or develops something by the spec and does not show a preliminary versions / check ground / seek feedback while in-process, and how many levels in-between those, just one - or more - doing nothing to facilitate the information flow?

> "Why do I keep creating the same dynamic?"

add, in that same sort of corporative jungle..

Re: The three year myth

#112

Post by cardanome »

matwood wrote: post #99
cardanome wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The OCD mention functions similarly and it explains the overanalysis as a feature, not something that might be creating friction with colleagues. Because it is both and this is a very classic problem for neurodivergent people. As a ADHD person I could very much relate. My pattern recognition allows me to see connections and structure where neurotypical people only see chaos. I am often three, four, five steps ahead…

> My pattern recognition allows me to see connections and structure where neurotypical people only see chaos. I am often three, four, five steps ahead and can see potential problems and solutions so much earlier. A little humility would probably help a lot. Your post is already blaming everyone else for not listening to you. This isn't really about you thinking differently.

Oh I am sorry for highlighting one of the side effects of my crippling disability.

I did not even present it as an advantage but as something that causes feelings of isolation but I guess I am bragging about it and need more humility.

My brain's filtering function is defect. Where neurotypical people see one or two possible solution my brain automatically comes up with ten which is great for creativity but also paralyzing. Where neurotypical people can easily control their focus I can't.

Now I do think people that present their ADHD as a superpower are full of shit but I think it is fair to point out that some of the aspects could also be strengths if the structure I work with would allow them to be strengths. I think that is very fair to criticize.

I assure you that a significant chunk of my energy is spend every day in adjusting my communication to the needs of neurotypical people and always second guessing myself and improving how I do that. It just sucks that they get quite angry if I ever suggested they adjust their communication just a tiny bit for my sake.

Re: The three year myth

#113

Post by Cpoll »

bko wrote: post #79
krisoft wrote: post #31

If you ask for a raise and they say “maybe in two to three years” thats simply a polite no. > “you know the world outside is hostile to job seekers and a steady paycheck beats the unemployment line” You can search for a new job while employed. Unless you are stuck on an underwater submarine playing hide-and-seek you can always fire off a few inquiries.

Exactly. A lot of this reads as a coping story about losing a job. If you were laid off, chances are you weren't valuable enough. Pure layoffs happen. But from my experience useful employees almost never get let go. Doesnt mean theyre bad, just they weren't productive in the organization. Another thing I will note is that most startups start w very little formal process. If someone wants a promotion you can just do i…

> But from my experience useful employees almost never get let go.

Maybe if the mythical homo economicus is making the layoff decisions.

Re: The three year myth

#114

Post by cardanome »

jtrn wrote: post #92
cardanome wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The OCD mention functions similarly and it explains the overanalysis as a feature, not something that might be creating friction with colleagues. Because it is both and this is a very classic problem for neurodivergent people. As a ADHD person I could very much relate. My pattern recognition allows me to see connections and structure where neurotypical people only see chaos. I am often three, four, five steps ahead…

I find that there is a big difference between how people that use the fact that they are "A perfectionist OCD person". Some wield it at a weapon. Some use it as an excuse. Some start with the assumption that it can be harness into something good. And some beat them self up over it uses it to degrade them self. I think its most helpful to view it as a "know thy self" data point, and not make it someone else problem, b…

> not make it someone else problem

A great way for cultivating internalized self hatred and burn out.

You approach isn't wrong per se and might be the right one for some people. Some people need to be told to take more personal responsibility

But other people take too much personal responsibility already and only blame themselves and need to be told that they have a disability and it is their right to ask for accessibility and help. That the world is part of the problem.

So it depends.

Re: The three year myth

#115

Post by sneak »

pjmlp wrote: post #23
sneak wrote: post #8

> The pink slip comes as a total surprise. It always comes as a surprise. You did everything you were told, even waited patiently like you were asked. You trusted the organization to reward you in turn - and now you've lost your job. Your reward is your paycheck. On Friday night, the balance anyone owes anyone is zero. You didn’t “trust” them at all. They had no further obligations to you, nor you to them. You seem t…

I agree, which is why all that garbage that we are supposed to regurgitate during interviews about wanting to save the world, or why this company is so interesting, in reality it is a meaningless theather. We sell our work, they give us a paycheck, done, lets not make it more than it is.

Precisely! It’s easier and simpler for everyone involved if we stop pretending a simple money transaction is something other than a simple money transaction.

This is one of the reasons I do contracting: the social expectations around vendors are very different than those around employees.

Re: The three year myth

#116

Post by K0balt »

jtbayly wrote: post #78
K0balt wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If losing your job is traumatic, I’d suggest reviewing your relationship with employers and employment in general. It’s not a stable situation, and there is no social aspect in reality. It’s an accounting decision. Employment is almost always exploitation on one side or the other, with the best case being mutual exploitation. Employment inherently involves paying less for your work than it is worth. In an ideal situa…

I challenge you to think about the implications of if you were right. If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. If paying for labor is violence, paying for a product is violence. Nobody should be allowed to buy or sell (or trade). But then everybody would die. In a good economic transaction, whether purchase of product or labor, both parties end up happy with what they got out…

I’m not saying that violence is bad. Farming is violence. Mining is violence. It’s a compromise we make. But ending a session of it shouldn’t be traumatic.

And yes, in many cases it’s a win/win. Without farming, many animals would have been hunted to extinction. Instead, they are amongst the most numerous on the planet, but that isn’t much consolation for the march to the slaughterhouse.

Sacrifices are made. Compromises are accepted. Often, it’s good. Often it’s exploitation. Often it is perhaps worse than slavery, and often it is a path to relative wealth.

It shouldn’t be part of one’s identity or sense of worth, to be a really exploitable person, even if it’s to your own advantage at times.

Re: The three year myth

#117

Post by K0balt »

locknitpicker wrote: post #80
K0balt wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If losing your job is traumatic, I’d suggest reviewing your relationship with employers and employment in general. It’s not a stable situation, and there is no social aspect in reality. It’s an accounting decision. Employment is almost always exploitation on one side or the other, with the best case being mutual exploitation. Employment inherently involves paying less for your work than it is worth. In an ideal situa…

> If losing your job is traumatic, I’d suggest reviewing your relationship with employers and employment in general. This is a rather clueless and ignorant opinion to have. Your job is what pays your mortgage/rent and your bills, and it's a key factor in where you chose to live. Your job has a fundamental impact in your personal life and your family's experience. Once you are fired, odds are your life will change rad…

Perhaps it is unwise to leave your wellbeing and security entirely up to someone who has no incentive to care about the outcome? But, idk, you do you.

Re: The three year myth

#118

Post by K0balt »

JackFr wrote: post #106
keybored wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That employment is exploitation is evidenced by profits. Employment is a commodity. Any business expects to get more value out of a commodity. Not to break even. > If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. Everyone would die? Are you assuming that employment gets eliminated and nothing is replaced by it? Anyone who is against the employment relation wants something different. N…

Can you accept that two parties can make an exchange that leaves them both better off? If you can’t accept that, there’s no real point in any further discussion.

Of course! I don’t think I said it couldn’t be mutual.

Re: The three year myth

#119

Post by K0balt »

bluecheese452 wrote: post #72
K0balt wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If losing your job is traumatic, I’d suggest reviewing your relationship with employers and employment in general. It’s not a stable situation, and there is no social aspect in reality. It’s an accounting decision. Employment is almost always exploitation on one side or the other, with the best case being mutual exploitation. Employment inherently involves paying less for your work than it is worth. In an ideal situa…

That is nice but my bills still need to be paid.

I’ve been on both sides of the table for decades. I try to find ways to bind incentives from either side so that they are better aligned, but it’s always exploitative in one way or another. It’s just suboptimal. Perhaps employee owned businesses are the solution.

Re: The three year myth

#120

Post by DannyBee »

oa335 wrote: post #58
jtrn wrote: post #54

For anybody that is interested in a clinical psychologist's take, here is mine… This article triggers an overwhelming feeling that something is missing in the story. Of course, being fired is genuinely painful, and the author's emotional state is understandable. But I think there is a much better way to understand this situation that would be beneficial to the author. Please note that this is just a guess, and in rea…

Honestly, I think your hypothesis betrays a naïveté on how corporations actually function. How much time have you spent working in a technical capacity at a mid or large size corporation?

I've worked for 25+ years in mid and large size corporations, including IBM, Google, and other places (so a pretty large gamut of cultures and behaviors), and i think it's exactly right, FWIW.

For example - there is little to no understanding presented by the OP as to the actual perspectives of others - IE giving factual examples of what happened, and how this made OP view the other person's perspective. Instead, you get exactly one side of a story, without really any facts, and then a cartoon caricatures they are presenting as the other side (also without any real facts). What is the actual example of what the other side of any of these stories did that is being used to back up these perspectives?

The post you are responding to points this (and other things) out , in a fairly kind way, and it's totally right to do so.

FWIW - i'll point you did a variant of the same behavior OP did- you say it betrays someone as being naieve, but provide no examples that actually back this up (IE what facts and examples do you have that make you believe it is naieve), and then sort of try to place the burden of them to prove you wrong by asking how long they worked at corporations?

This is nowhere near as bad an example as what OP did, but I would offer, similar to the post you responded to - it is much more effective and helpful if, rather than sort of try to paint someone else with your feelings, instead provide your experience and why it made you agree or disagree with what they wrote.

That is actually helpful in understanding your perspective on the situation, and enables folks to have a real discussion about it.

Post reply on HN