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

141–150 of 191 posts

Re: The three year myth

#141

Post by jtrn »

lunar-whitey wrote: post #134
jtrn wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither ADHD nor OCD have anything to do with communication style, 'being five steps ahead,' or patterns of interpersonal friction. The only symptom that remotely fits here is impulsive speech, and that's sporadic, it doesn't produce a consistent pattern of seeing yourself as above your colleagues, and its not related to the content style of the speech. This is something i see allot of. People project what they want…

> And there is another diagnosis that is blindingly obvious but i wont name it out here. I wonder why a self identified mental health professional would go to such lengths to deny the viewpoint many of autistic people, who frequently report that the truth of what they say matters far less to organizations than the manner in which they say it.

Because it’s annoying that people can’t even stick with the criteria that are basically the same across all the major diagnostic manuals. And because I believe that words and concepts should mean somethin. Because it’s proof that they are not really as focused on details as they claim.

Every time someone wrongly claim they have PTSD, which is a lot these days, they water down and diminish the experience of people who have experienced severe and real trauma.

Said another way. Because it’s egotistical.

For the record, I have worked with hundreds of people with ASD and helped them understand how to navigate social relations. And I’ve tried to work with people that claim they have ASD, but in reality, just use it as an excuse to be a jackass. Guess which ones of them are defensive with regards to their pet diagnosis?

Re: The three year myth

#142

Post by jtrn »

ferroman wrote: post #130
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…

clinical psychologist's like to invent imaginary scenarios and add something that is not in text, aren't they?

As I wrote in the opening. That’s exactly what we do all the time. It’s called case formulation. It’s called hypothesis testing. In this case it’s also common sense about human nature.

Re: The three year myth

#143

Post by K0balt »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #133
locknitpicker wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No, he's right. One should not pin their happiness to things outside their control. If losing your job is traumatic to you, that is a sign you need to work on improving your detachment from outside factors. Obviously we all have bills to pay and would like to keep a roof over our heads, but being traumatized by losing a job is an extremely unhealthy (and abnormal) response.

I think I kinda forgot that not everyone has stoic framing for their viewpoint with my original post lol. You do an excellent job of saying what I meant without describing things in a way that many (maybe most?) people would misconstrue. Thank you.

Re: The three year myth

#144

Post by matsemann »

massysett wrote: post #94
matsemann wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think signaling that you're disloyal to where you work is a good way of landing a new job.

You don’t think answering the phone when a prospective employer calls is a good way of landing a new job?

All your posts in this discussion is full of straw men and twisting peoples' words. Do better. Not fruitful to have a discussion with you. (Like your ranty assumptions about what kind of person someone is, come on...)

And no, if I were to answer the phone where every spammy prospective idiot is calling me it would be multiple times a day. I don't care.

Re: The three year myth

#145

Post by Nevermark »

K0balt wrote: post #135
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Farming is violence. Mining is violence. That's only true if you use a definition of "violence" which is so far outside the accepted definition as to make conversation impossible. Farming and mining are in no way violence unless you resort to idiosyncratic definitions.

I guess if you limit “violence” to violence against humans only? I’ve always thought that violence was applicable to animals and plants as well, so I guess we differ there. Intentional harm that causes death is firmly in the violence category, imho. the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy is pretty much the accepted definition, afaik I’m not thinking of violence as some kind of universal…

You are using a word in a way it is seldom used.

You could define your take up front.

Or better yet, figure out the words other people will be able to recognize and understand you, without unnecessary linguistic gymnastics.

Re: The three year myth

#146

Post by majgr »

I never was good at these human power things. Years after happening, I realised I was the object of a manipulation. I never cared about promotions and stuff like that. I change jobs because I am bored by it after couple of years anyway. I do not mind, well, I will welcome, when AI takes jobs of managers. No more politics, power plays, setting coalitions.

Re: The three year myth

#147

Post by imtringued »

K0balt wrote: post #119
bluecheese452 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The solutions will always be the same: demurrage currency and land value taxes.

Re: The three year myth

#148

Post by imtringued »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #123

On one hand there are places that will look out for job-hoppers so the 3yr rule is good. But for promotions, job-hopping is the best strategy. The part people don't talk about much is the toll it takes on you when you switch jobs. It's like moving but worse. It's not like switching your wardrobe or something, it's a very drastic and intense change. There really is no hard-and-fast rule with these things, you just hav…

"What matters is how valuable you are to individuals."

Specifically "What matters is how valuable you are to" the individuals that decide your paycheck.

Re: The three year myth

#149

Post by ferroman »

jtrn wrote: post #142
ferroman wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

clinical psychologist's like to invent imaginary scenarios and add something that is not in text, aren't they?

As I wrote in the opening. That’s exactly what we do all the time. It’s called case formulation. It’s called hypothesis testing. In this case it’s also common sense about human nature.

It's called "strawman fallacy", you replacing the thesis and add things that wasn't there to draw plausible conclusions instead of trying to get more information if there's not enough. Calling it "hypothesis" isn't charging anything.

Re: The three year myth

#150

Post by badpun »

keybored wrote: post #83
jtbayly wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Part of the profits come from employment of capital. Almost no company relies solely on labor, they typically rely on both labor and capital (machines, buildings etc.). Owner of capital wants compensation for their investments, and he gets it via profits. Meanwhile, workers want compensation for their work, and they get it via wages. The exact split between compensation for capital and for work is a subject of negotiation (and often laws).
Post reply on HN