291–300 of 336 posts
Yes, we want to blame it on working long hours or exposure to unethical bosses, but that myth just makes us feel better. We like to think that we can avoid mental illness by avoiding mean bosses, like we could avoid cancer if we eat plenty of vegetables.
Unfortunately, that just isn't true.
If you're feeling similarly, or have in the past, and are looking for an alternative then you might want to consider teaching. I used to do cubicle work at a couple of tech companies and fucking hated it. I simply cannot stomach office politics, and I can't tolerate others that do the whole ladder climbing, brown nosing thing around me. The straw that broke the camel's back was when my line manager took credit for my…
It becomes a negative cycle, because you think you're going to blow them away so much with your effectiveness, that they are going to bring you into the boardroom and make you a co-executive of the company.
And when they don't, you just work harder and bring even smarter ideas to the table. And they still don't (they say "thanks", but they don't rearrange their whole world view and make you a key player in the company).
The fallacy is this -- you are waiting for other people to recognize your brillance and "crown" you. You may indeed be brilliant -- I'm not disputing that.
But you can't wait for someone to "crown" you. If you have what it takes to be a key player in a company, then start one (or at least, apply for jobs at that level). Whatever field you want to get in, go do stuff in it. This waiting for external validation is the flaw.
When the higher-ups start benefitting from the work of someone like this, the temptation is way too strong to simply keep the machine cranking as long as possible. And they know how they got into the positions of power they have -- they "went out and seized it", they didn't wait for someone to hand it to the because they deserved it.
So they wouldn't know how to "crown" someone even if they wanted to. The world just doesn't work that way (granted, with some few exceptions). There's no "process" for promoting someone 10 levels because you discovered they are brilliant.
Instead, those at the top took it upon themselves to say, "Hey, I belong at the top, and I'm going to insist on it." Some of them over-estimated themselves, and some didn't. But even the ones who really do belong at the top did not wait to be "crowned", but decided for themselves they belonged there.
At the heart of it is an irrational need for external validation before you pursue the rightful level for yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I saw this story, my first thought was to go to the comments and do a ctrl-F "michaelochurch". Was not disappointed. I think this story is essentially the Clueless -> Loser transition in Gervais principle terminology.
That might be his future, but Clueless -> Loser is "going completely sane ". Technocrats are Clueless who go the other way and turn into "Sociopath with a heart of gold" types. We actually believe that there's something worth fighting for. Since we tend to disadvantage our own employability and, therefore, our incomes, I believe this puts us into the "insane" category. We are here to use technology and rationality to…
I think your chaotic/lawful dichotomy is very real, but the good/evil dichotomy is really a matter of perspective, I don't think it exists in a concrete sense. Selfish/generous might be a closer representation of reality. What most of us perceive as "evil" is really just a person wielding power over others for selfish means.
There's a growing contingent of people using technology for generous rather than selfish means (yeah that's what "open source" is) and their philosophy is extending into social activism, but the industrial authoritarians have a big head start on us. They've been using technology as an expedient to their selfish purposes for a very long time already. (What's worse than being a MacLeodian Loser? Not even being one anymore because your former employer figured out how to make a machine do your job and had no reason to keep paying you. That describes 11 million Americans.)
I've always found it funny that generosity and sharing are "radical" and "activist" while greed and selfishness, even to the extreme, are now considered normal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> First, these companies are designed to become profitable, not to exit, so compensation is profit-sharing, not the joke equity offered by VC-istan That really, really resonated! Now for a counterpoint. When I read that remark, I recalled reading a recent interview of Groupon's COO and I quote this para: In 2007, he started Global Scholar to “help teachers give differentiated education to kids using technology. It w…
Now tell me, just how exactly are you even going to combat deeply entrenched mindsets like those, which also happen foster the usual confirmation and survivor bias dreams in most, if not all aspiring "wantapreneurs"? I don't think selling a company is a bad thing. I think building a company with the idea in mind that one must sell (because one's backers will flip out if there isn't a sale) is bad.
Neither do I see it as an inherently bad thing. There are valid and compelling reason to sell a company. E.g., There might be no "family successors". Your heart may no longer be in it. You might want to do other things. You might feel that someone else might take it to the next level better than yourself at the helm.... etc., etc..
>> building a company with the idea in mind that one must sell [........] is bad
And that's exactly what was being implied here.... "The moment you start a company, it is for sale… at the right price". And I have a problem with that one too!
I've seen a lot of this over the past two years. I personally have witnessed five guys completely break down. Hell, we just had a manager who was under a lot of pressure last summer for a huge release. He had a complete breakdown and after four months off, he came back, took a demotion, but he's not the same guy anymore. He used to have a really outgoing personality and loved to talk about his band and music. Now he…
Five ? Is there some connection - the same industry, or the same company?
The one thing which connects them all is a developer just like in the article. Driven to perfection, willing to do whatever is asked of him, and burns the candle at three ends until he finally goes over the edge. I'm talking averaging 70 hours a week for two year straight kind of candle burning. The kind of narcissistic pursuit which is simply impossible to achieve.
I have stories of all five if you want to hear them. Let me know and I'll elaborate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
120-hours for multiple weeks? Is that even possible? Why would anyone without substantial ownership stake even do that?
Who said there wasn't substantial skin in the game? And actually I remember it as 110 hour weeks (though it's possible that I was the slacker of the bunch). Yeah, we had something like 3 months of working 15 to 18 hours per day, 7 days per week. Totally possible. Totally stupid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the issue really work-life balance, or mental health? They are actually two separate things. Perhaps, but I believe there's a close relationship between the two. Getting the balance wrong can definitely lead to mental health problems.
Maybe overwork exacerbates things, but sometimes it's just chemicals wrong in the head. It can be dangerous to treat major mental illness without addressing the biochemistry. In general I am not pro medication, but breakdowns can be deeper than work. Of course an 80 hour work week won't help an already unstable person.
Is the issue really work-life balance, or mental health? They are actually two separate things. I had a roommate lose it. He was very disciplined, but had a chemical imbalance in his head. He was a hard worker, but did this really have any impact on his losing it? I am not an expert, but I doubt it. The end lesson of "Don't kill yourself for a company if they don't respect you" may be true, but that seems a little di…
The real issue is pay for performance.
If you're feeling similarly, or have in the past, and are looking for an alternative then you might want to consider teaching. I used to do cubicle work at a couple of tech companies and fucking hated it. I simply cannot stomach office politics, and I can't tolerate others that do the whole ladder climbing, brown nosing thing around me. The straw that broke the camel's back was when my line manager took credit for my…
I'm a high school student, who is considering teaching as a future career path, and I have a few questions. 1. What subjects do you teach? Would you recommend teaching them? 2. Did you find any value in working at a non teaching job first, then going into the teaching career? Put another way, if you were doing this all over again, would you go straight to being a teacher, or would you have a non-teaching job for a li…
1. I teach Computing/IT and a few AU specific subjects (Research Project and Personal Learning Plan). In the past I have taught Maths up to year 8 level also. Both IT and Maths are great subjects. Personally I'm very happy teaching either of them. One thing to note is that as a teacher you do have to be willing to take on a subject you may not be entirely qualified for. For example I'm currently teaching a year 8 media studies course without having any media training. It's really all about having an open mind.
2. Having worked outside of teaching first, even though it was only for 3 years, was invaluable. Career teachers who have only ever taught are a strange bunch. They have a totally distorted picture of reality. They don't realise that in the "real world" people:
a) have line managers,
b) have to keep time sheets which require that literally every hour of time is billed to a client,
c) have a boss working across from you or continuously looking over your shoulder,
d) have only 4 weeks of paid vacation,
e) have a requirement to justify every sick day and produce a doctor's certificate for each absence etc.
f) The list goes on and on.
So in answer to your question: Having a "real" job outside of teaching has been the single best thing I ever did for my "career". It means that even after almost 10 years of teaching I still appreciate all of the great things this job has to offer.
Having said that, teaching is not for everyone. It isn't rocket surgery, but not everyone has what it takes. You have to really love the act of teaching, as well as liking being around kids most of the time.
I'm glad you're considering teaching as a career. I hope, whatever path you choose, things work out in your favour. If you have any further questions then I'm happy to pass on my email address.
All the best.