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

171–180 of 191 posts

Re: The three year myth

#171

Post by keybored »

badpun wrote: post #150
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…

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 negoti…

The capitalist has more assets and commodities than just the labor commodities? So what?

Re: The three year myth

#172

Post by keybored »

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.

> Can you accept that two parties can make an exchange that leaves them both better off?

Yes.

> If you can’t accept that, there’s no real point in any further discussion.

There’s a lot of assumptions packed in to this statement.

But you can be the arbiter of the Overton Window. I know that I am swearing in church.

Re: The three year myth

#173

Post by jtrn »

kderbyma wrote: post #161
jtrn wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You sound like a dreadful psychologist if true. You clearly do not have empathy or understanding or tou have burned out and need a break. Your so assured in your antagonistic retorts that you are unraveling the very point of trust you staked to give your opinion social validation....You are lacking aelf awareness and it shows that clearly you are generalizing the diagnoses and possibily you just over diagnose narciss…

There is absolutely no empathy in not helping people with the actual problem. Using ASD protocol on someone who has a personality disorder is going to make things worse.

It sounds to me like you have no empathy for all the people who are afraid to acknowledge that they have an autism diagnosis because it has become a fashionable diagnosis.

If you look at your response to me making serious points about the need for valid diagnoses and criteria to conduct proper research and find the best treatment methods for everyone, you use this to assume that I don’t think everyone should get help.

For instance, I get extremely annoyed when people misdiagnose borderline personality disorder by calling it bipolar. If you use the treatment protocol for bipolar disorder, you’re going to make it worse for the person.

Do you think I’m dismissing their suffering and dismissing their plight? I love helping people. How many people have you heard of going to a clinician and ending up talking about something that wasn’t really their issue, spending years going through the motions? Much of that is not working on the correct problem. So I actually think it’s extremely dangerous, destructive, and unempathic towards the people who are suffering to glorify avoidance of the real issues and attack anybody who tries to help people focus on the issue.

The best example of how naïve you are regarding real psychological therapy is when you say it’s easier to diagnose narcissistic personality disorder. It’s one of the hardest things to do. It’s infinitely easier to just agree with everything the person says, give them the ADHD or PTSD diagnosis, and let them sit with it for 10 years while suffering and avoiding working on themselves.

Yes, I am the one without empathy.

Re: The three year myth

#174

Post by jtrn »

cardanome wrote: post #137
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…

For the benefit of anyone else reading these comments: I have decided against replying to this. Reading further comments from this person like > And focusing on systemic injustice is a destructive patterns I've seen in both the clinic and in the workplace. https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47014937&goto=threads%... Makes it clear there there is an ideological motivation here and nothing productive to be gained. I…

Yes. The terrible ideology of working on yourself not blaming the world! It’s only the core of almost all psychotherapy approaches, self-help book, secular self improvement programs, and religions ever.

Re: The three year myth

#175

Post by jtrn »

dasil003 wrote: post #156
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…

I gotta say you really nailed a solid explanation for what I felt reading the OA but would not have been able to articulate it this clearly. As someone who personally had a history of wanting to be right, sometimes at the expense of being effective, this is a lesson worth taking to heart. What I’ve learned is that raw engineering chops and deep end-to-end thinking is highly valued if and only if you understand where…

There’s an underlying pattern to the negative responses. “ how dare you suggest that people should work on improving themselves”

Re: The three year myth

#176

Post by jtrn »

lunar-whitey wrote: post #158
jtrn wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I honestly hope you are lying about your profession, rather than venting your personal frustrations with clients by arguing with people that you believe resemble them online.

Tell me what I’m wrong about?

I have absolutely no frustration with my clients. Be it psychopaths, social anxiety, pedophilia, or schizophrenia. I think I currently actually like all of my clients. And I think all of them I appreciate my approach. Because with them, I don’t care about labels. I only care about figuring out together what the real problem is. Can I accept who they are no matter what their problem is, or who they are. The only thing I “fight”, metaphorically, against self deception.

That doesn’t mean that diagnosis is are handy quick references for the topic at hand.

Obviously, I don’t talk so directly confrontation with my clients as I do on a forum, but I follow the same principle. If I disagree on their own self assessment, I talk with them about it until we both agree on what the real problem is. Sometimes I’m wrong. Sometimes the diagnosis label people give themselves is a defense mechanism.

Re: The three year myth

#177

Post by jtrn »

ferroman wrote: post #149
jtrn wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you just heard that word and use it because it makes you sound like a logical person. It’s not fitting at all here. After all, a straw man would be me taking a general claim and creating the weakest version of that argument.

If anything, you should argue that it’s overgeneralization, over-extrapolation, or an argument from authority. Hell, if you involved the concept of non sequitur, it would be better.

It’s like you’re cobbling together words related to scientific rigor without understanding the concepts. A hypothesis is, by definition, based on incomplete data. If it wasn’t, it would just be called an observation. So you make a hypothesis, see how it fits the data, and maybe even see how well it predicts the future.

Re: The three year myth

#178

Post by K0balt »

ineedasername wrote: post #165
K0balt wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. I don’t think in my experience that the term violence is seldom applied to things outside of humans, and IME the terms economic violence and social violence, emotional violence, and many others are common parlance. Perhaps we come from different cultures. At any rate, given the definition I find in several dictionaries I think my point stands. I will concede that coercion, exploitation, or extortion might be bet…

The term violence, when applied in any context, is applied in context . With a scope and meaning determined as much by tacitly accepted scope as it is by lexicon. So, to all of your questions— “no”. You are wrong, on all counts, because you are using language itself to set a scene where it has no right, attempting to have a meaning context-free applied to one contextual—- but only when it suits you. That isn’t conver…

I agree with you on context, but given my original context :

“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 situation, in exchange you get access to tools at a cost less than they cost to access on your own.

It’s inherently violent on some level. Ending violence shouldn’t be traumatic.”

I invoke violence in the context of exploitation or coercion. It seems clear to me that “inherently violent on some level” clearly invokes an unconventional interpretation of “violence” implicitly aligned with the previous context.

I have to conclude that a misconception of what was meant by “violence” here is either pedantism, low reading comprehension, or intellectual belligerence for the sake of grandstanding on a point. I really am having a great deal of difficulty substantiating a more charitable interpretation.

Perhaps you are accidentally missing the OP in this case and are missing the entire contextual picture?

Re: The three year myth

#179

Post by Stefan-H »

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.

If one is relying on their job for food/clothing/shelter, it is necessarily traumatic to lose those things. Perhaps for you, losing your job does not constitute a traumatic event, but anyone who lives paycheck to paycheck it most certainly would be.

Re: The three year myth

#180

Post by jimbokun »

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.

Well I suppose then no one should be traumatized by getting cancer or from permanent injuries from an unprovoked violent attack.

After all, those are things we have no control over. No sense in being traumatized by them.

Post reply on HN