Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever I see someone post on Facebook or LinkedIn the meme that "People don't remember what you do for them, they remember how you make them FEEL", I'm always like: hell no, doesn't happen with me. Really get annoyed by that meme.
It seems like you remember that meme because of how it made you feel.
The Disneyfication of a University
251–260 of 268 posts
Re: The Disneyfication of a University
#252As someone who is not from North America, this positive/good vibe culture really baffles me. You are a human being. Negative emotions are part of life. World is full of pain and sufferings. You are supposed to feel empathy for other people and feel bad for their misfortune even if you have the good luck of not going through suffering. I just don't understand this obsession of feeling good all the time. I don't know h…
For an example for a culture much to the contrary, in Austria, there's a tradional way of being "grantig" (grumpy, ill-tempered). According to at least one of the etymologies, this was based on an ill-informed observation of supposedly typical behavior of Spanish nobles, i.e. Grandes -> like a Grande -> grant-ig. To this day it's some of a poor man's way of professing accomplishment, not to the smallest of irritation…
Re: The Disneyfication of a University
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a really clever alternative to the volunteerism that is becoming very popular in companies -- hire others to do it. Then you're helping two groups of people. Of course that doesn't do much good for the company's employees that don't wind up volunteering / doing the work, perhaps even increasing the separation the employees may feel toward the less-privileged. Service projects, mission trips, etc. can do a lot…
>One could argue this is partly why companies want to do this sort of thing, so their employees grow (among other good / less-than-good reasons). I really wonder how much of it is this, and how much of it is virtue-signaling at the corporate level: "look at how great our company is! We have our employees spend work hours on charity work!" While it wouldn't do much for "team building", it seems like society would be b…
It used to be that religion provided these answers. Believe in God, have faith, go through these rituals, help the poor and you're a good person who has successfully discharged moral responsibility.
Religion has faded away, so we're left with "a good person helps the poor" which everyone agrees is a pretty moral thing to do. But the more indirect it gets the less moral value is assigned to it.
People assign moral value to hours of time invested because time is what we all have equally. Time is not money when it comes to judging character. It must be this way because otherwise it'd be that very high earning people help the poor to a vastly greater extent than the average person does, just by turning up to work every day and paying their taxes. If that automatically made them morally superior to everyone else, it'd create a lot of resentment. No matter how hard you worked you would never be as "good" as the rich guy who just turns up and does some lucky stock trading or whatever.
I think sometimes programmers don't feel this way to quite the same extent as other sorts of office workers because we sometimes get more meaning from our work than someone in e.g. sales. The Silicon Valley stereotype of "Join our startup because we're changing the world for good!" has a basis in real self-perceptions. If you believe you're making the world a better place by actually doing your work, of course doing extra charity stuff will seem silly and a poor allocation of time/money relative to other ways of achieving the same ends.
Re: The Disneyfication of a University
#254It's part of the ongoing "corporatization" and "MBA-ization" of US colleges and universities. GW's attempt to institute a "culture" using techniques developed at Disney is just one of many possible examples, although I will admit it is a particularly easy one to mock. (Quoting the OP: "The GW culture initiative can be summed up in two words: Mickey Mouse.") Much of higher education in the US is now controlled by an a…
> Perhaps the most salient example of this ever-expanding bureaucracy is Stanford's shiny new 35-acre campus in Redwood City, which houses only non-academic administrative staff. The idea of a separate campus just for administrative staff feels like a real-life version of Douglas Adams' Golgafrinchan Ark B: https://everything2.com/title/B+Ark
Re: The Disneyfication of a University
#255A good rule of thumb is that the more a corporation talks about "culture", the more the employees should be wary that they are getting fleeced. A lot of companies have realized that they get employees to work harder for less if they are able to get the employees to develop some sort of emotional attachment to the company. If you as an employee are getting a lot of push about "company culture" and the company is tryin…
You're implying as if it's inherently a fraud. Which means that you're implying that "emotional attachement to the company" is something that has no real value for employee - or at least not as much value as money would have.
Why do you think so?
Re: The Disneyfication of a University
#256A good rule of thumb is that the more a corporation talks about "culture", the more the employees should be wary that they are getting fleeced. A lot of companies have realized that they get employees to work harder for less if they are able to get the employees to develop some sort of emotional attachment to the company. If you as an employee are getting a lot of push about "company culture" and the company is tryin…
> A lot of companies have realized that they get employees to work harder for less if they are able to get the employees to develop some sort of emotional attachment to the company. This is the kind of bullshit I inoculate myself against by telling myself: This is not your life. These are not your best friends. This is you farming gold out of a megacorp so you have the means to advance the story-driven missions that…
Re: The Disneyfication of a University
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
>One could argue this is partly why companies want to do this sort of thing, so their employees grow (among other good / less-than-good reasons). I really wonder how much of it is this, and how much of it is virtue-signaling at the corporate level: "look at how great our company is! We have our employees spend work hours on charity work!" While it wouldn't do much for "team building", it seems like society would be b…
These sorts of corporate charity events happen because people want to know they are good people, that they're moral people who are making the world better. Our society, reasonably, emphasises the importance of these things very strongly to everyone from birth. It used to be that religion provided these answers. Believe in God, have faith, go through these rituals, help the poor and you're a good person who has succes…
This would only make sense if paying taxes actually helped the poor. In America, it doesn't really follow. There's not much of a social safety net here. For proof, all you have to do is walk around various large cities' downtowns and see all the homeless people. There's thousands of them within a very short walking distance of the White House and Capitol buildings in DC.
Re: The Disneyfication of a University
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me of some web article I read a while ago complaining about how women suffer more "emotional labor" in relationships. It was of course written by a women, but to me, it really seemed like a lot of whining, which amounted to "I think all this stuff is necessary, so if my husband doesn't pitch in and do half of it, it's unfair." So, for instance, if the wife insists on having an immaculately clean house, a…
It might show, though, that those two people aren't very compatible and maybe not a good match for marriage.
Honestly, I'm starting to think that very few married couples are really all that compatible in the first place, and that the institution isn't a very good deal for most people involved. Considering just how many marriages end in divorce, plus how many people simple stay single these days, it seems like marriage really isn't workable. It only worked in "the old days" because women were 2nd-class citizens who rarely could get good jobs, and social pressures just forced people to get married, and stay married, even if they were miserable together.
Re: The Disneyfication of a University
#259Several years ago, I had to attend a full day "culture training" session given by Senn Delaney (a division of Heidrick & Struggles) [1]. It was also a massive waste of time. Our company actually has a really great culture, and what I remember of the training amounted to a somewhat subtle attempt to indoctrinate employees to be more blindly obedient to management change initiatives. There was some other stuff, but I h…
Not long ago at $JOB I sat through what I call "mandatory psychobabble day". The particular psychobabble being peddled to, or rather, imposed on, us was the DISC system -- a variant of which was recently outed on Hackernews as pernicious hucksterism which somehow held much of Sweden in its sway. It was supposed to make us better collaborators, under the rubric that understanding the traits of both your own star sign…
Re: The Disneyfication of a University
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
These sorts of corporate charity events happen because people want to know they are good people, that they're moral people who are making the world better. Our society, reasonably, emphasises the importance of these things very strongly to everyone from birth. It used to be that religion provided these answers. Believe in God, have faith, go through these rituals, help the poor and you're a good person who has succes…
>It must be this way because otherwise it'd be that very high earning people help the poor to a vastly greater extent than the average person does, just by turning up to work every day and paying their taxes. This would only make sense if paying taxes actually helped the poor. In America, it doesn't really follow. There's not much of a social safety net here. For proof, all you have to do is walk around various large…
Sure, America is very large. It may not be 'much' of a social safety net relative to other countries. But it's still the case that the rich subsidise the poor to a very large degree, in any western country.