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

Why I Quit Being So Accommodating (1922)

mikecanex.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 335 posts

Re: Why I Quit Being So Accommodating (1922)

#311

Post by mcguire »

rdiddly wrote: post #47
graphitezepp wrote: post #37

As someone who trends towards heavily accommodating, I often seem to find my actions that I judge as selfish or arrogant are the ones that I get respect for. Definitely a phenomena I don't understand, but its real so it should be very valuable to learn where to draw the line.

Put it in the context of dominance and submission among apes and it becomes clear. The one who does nice things for you is displaying a submissive posture and trying to win your favor. They are probably your social inferior: beneath you in the hierarchy, or at most, a peer. The one who doesn't care about you and does what he wants, shows that he's above you in the hierarchy. And some people just can't resist their in…

Manners are also a way of preventing two dominant individuals from coming into conflict over irrelevancies. And, if you don't think manners can be used aggressively...

Re: Why I Quit Being So Accommodating (1922)

#312

Post by mcguire »

komali2 wrote: post #92

His drug store father example struck me - I don't really experience this "service worker" thing anymore, even when I was a service worker. It seems to me the playing field is being extraordinarily leveled. When I was a bagger at a grocery store, nobody looked down on me. Maybe because of my town, but I was never expected to "serve" someone's whims - I was just expected to do my job, and when I did my job people thank…

"I'm at the mechanic's, I'm pinging him for his expert advice. I'm at the carwash place, I'm asking them if they wouldn't mind doing the interior windows for a bit extra, etc."

You're asking your mechanic for free advice? You're asking the carwash guys for extra services they don't advertise or normally supply?

Re: Why I Quit Being So Accommodating (1922)

#313

Post by mcguire »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #99
Karunamon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comparison falls apart the moment you're talking about matters of moral, conscience, or basically anything that doesn't have an epistemologically solid answer. People can debate these issues, arrive at different answers, and still get along at the end of the day. When those issues are compared to math, where one side is automatically Right and the other side is automatically Wrong and you are Unreasonable if you…

I've never had a job involving "moral, conscience, or basically anything that doesn't have an epistemologically solid answer" except the moral issues that were clear-cut. E.g. flat-out illegal. Nor have I ever had anyone use the word "reasonable" that way in such a discussion. I'm the technical expert wherever I work, and yes, the situation is pretty clear-cut. The abuse of the word in such clear situations is why I…

"I'm the technical expert wherever I work..."

Therefore my opinions are correct and yours, to the extent that they differ, are wrong.

Re: Why I Quit Being So Accommodating (1922)

#314

Post by komali2 »

mcguire wrote: post #312
komali2 wrote: post #92

His drug store father example struck me - I don't really experience this "service worker" thing anymore, even when I was a service worker. It seems to me the playing field is being extraordinarily leveled. When I was a bagger at a grocery store, nobody looked down on me. Maybe because of my town, but I was never expected to "serve" someone's whims - I was just expected to do my job, and when I did my job people thank…

" I'm at the mechanic's, I'm pinging him for his expert advice. I'm at the carwash place, I'm asking them if they wouldn't mind doing the interior windows for a bit extra, etc. " You're asking your mechanic for free advice? You're asking the carwash guys for extra services they don't advertise or normally supply?

>Free advice

I mean, I'm paying him to fix my car, and then I'm also having a conversation with a human being. That was the whole point. I'm negotiating with the carwash guys because they're humans - if they don't wanna do the thing, they'll tell me.

This is kind of exactly my point - I'm not treating these folks like robots whose prices are up on a board in the front of the building.

Re: Why I Quit Being So Accommodating (1922)

#315

Post by lomnakkus »

Swizec wrote: post #310
lomnakkus wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I see what you mean now. Thanks. I definitely agree that there's a difference between "generally unreliable" and "unreliable until committed". Coincidentally the person from my anecdote is also "your type", but unfortunately it's really hard to tell from the outset if he's committed or not, so... As long as people are very clear about when they're committed, I have absolutely no problem with "unreliable" people :…

> unfortunately it's really hard to tell from the outset if he's committed or not, so... I think that stems from an "avoiding confrontation" place. I grew up with a mother that would take it very very poorly if I said "No" for things, so I got used to saying "yeah sure uh-huh" without even hearing what I'm agreeing to. Sometimes I still do that. It's mostly frustrating for my girlfriend tho, doesn't happen in other c…

Let me preface this with: I'm quite drunk, and this is probably a lot more ranty than I intended. I have read it through a couple of times and I think it holds up even when sober, but I'll let you be the judge of that. I don't think I'm being dishonest or frivolous.

As you say -- as far as I can tell -- it's probably "just" about honest communication... or maybe you're just irresponsible! (That was a joke!)

Just out of curiosity when+why didn't you "do something I said I would"? Of course you mention that you don't remember her saying it, but that just leaves the question of... why don't you remember it? I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm really curious about this dynamic.

My "troublesome" friend person is probably very similar to you -- not having access to your or his internal monologue, I can't be sure -- but honestly, I think maybe he's just prioritizing badly, if you know what I mean? Maybe he lacks empathy to see how much distress his procrastination sometimes causes?

I should also add that "we" have obligations to third-parties[3] which means that his procrastination sometimes means that "we" + "others"[2] have to do 24h+ shifts just because he didn't prepare/do-it-in-time. Just out of curiosity, is this this something you would do (intentionally or not)?

(I won't lie, that shit is stressful. Even if you want and are willing to get it done on time this "$X isn't quite ready" thing is extremely stressful until "you" get it done.)

[1] Because Psychoanalysis is mostly bullshit.

[2] External accountants and that sort of thing. It's absurd how far this procrastination (about fully known calendar dates) is.

[3] Think drug cartels... or the Tax Man. Take your pick! :)

Re: Why I Quit Being So Accommodating (1922)

#316

Post by advael »

Reading this article was great for me. It provided a perspective that I needed with a compelling argument for it.

Reading the comments was a huge mistake. It mired the previous sense of insight with contradictory perspectives supported by compelling anecdotes but, crucially, no analysis more rigorous than the original article.

Of course, you can make a compelling case for anything if you have rhetoric and evidence isn't demanded of you, but I think there's a point where analysis is of negative value.

In a way, learning this lesson has been valuable in and of itself.

Re: Why I Quit Being So Accommodating (1922)

#317

Post by Swizec »

lomnakkus wrote: post #315
Swizec wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unfortunately it's really hard to tell from the outset if he's committed or not, so... I think that stems from an "avoiding confrontation" place. I grew up with a mother that would take it very very poorly if I said "No" for things, so I got used to saying "yeah sure uh-huh" without even hearing what I'm agreeing to. Sometimes I still do that. It's mostly frustrating for my girlfriend tho, doesn't happen in other c…

Let me preface this with: I'm quite drunk, and this is probably a lot more ranty than I intended. I have read it through a couple of times and I think it holds up even when sober, but I'll let you be the judge of that. I don't think I'm being dishonest or frivolous. As you say -- as far as I can tell -- it's probably "just" about honest communication... or maybe you're just irresponsible! (That was a joke!) Just out…

> Just out of curiosity, is this this something you would do (intentionally or not)?

To be honest, it's probably happened before. When it involves other people, I make sure it doesn't. When it's just me and I am willing to bear the risk, yeah, bureaucracy def gets done late.

As for brushing people off with "yeah sure". That happens when you bug me while I'm deep in thought on something. Like I'm in the middle of writing an article or I'm coding something that takes a lot of focus. If you bug me during such a time, I will often agree to things without even listening to you because it makes the distraction go away faster. I'm not ready to have a conversation about it or to deal with your protestation when I say "No", so I just say "uh-huh".

It's very obvious to everyone when this happens. And we all do it to an extent. Like when somebody is in the middle of furious texting and you say from across the room "Honey can you take out the trash?" they'll often say "ahuh" but then not do it becuase they don't even remember the interaction.

Almost everyone I know does that. My girlfriend included.

When it comes to important things, I should hope that adults would understand when it is and when it isn't a good time to make the ask. Like, if I'm scrambling to put my things together because the taxi is waiting downstairs to take me to the airport, don't use that exact moment to be like "Yo dude, the cartels are coming on monday, you have to get X Y and Z ready by tomorrow".

Basically, make sure I'm paying attention to you before you ask me for things that you intend to rely on.

Ya know?

Re: Why I Quit Being So Accommodating (1922)

#318

Post by rdiddly »

erkkie wrote: post #209
rdiddly wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put it in the context of dominance and submission among apes and it becomes clear. The one who does nice things for you is displaying a submissive posture and trying to win your favor. They are probably your social inferior: beneath you in the hierarchy, or at most, a peer. The one who doesn't care about you and does what he wants, shows that he's above you in the hierarchy. And some people just can't resist their in…

Curious about your thoughts on evo psych.

I think it explains a lot of things nicely, as a good theoretical framework should. But I'm also a little cautiously skeptical about it, because you're working backwards, without benefit of any real-time experimental data, so it's almost impossible to keep "present-day bias" out of it.

Re: Why I Quit Being So Accommodating (1922)

#319

Post by n8n3k »

lacampbell wrote: post #108
le-mark wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This equating of manners to a submissive posture is odd to me. One wonders what is meant by "manners". Saying yes, please, thank you, and holding a door are by no means submissive acts. Table manners, or not acting boarish while dining, is not submissive. Conducting oneself in a respectful, cordial manner is not submissive. However fawning and currying favor may indeed be submissive, but are not proscribed by any ide…

This equating of manners to a submissive posture is odd to me. One wonders what is meant by "manners". Saying yes, please, thank you, and holding a door are by no means submissive acts. Table manners, or not acting boarish while dining, is not submissive. Conducting oneself in a respectful, cordial manner is not submissive. I disagree, I think it is more submissive than doing the opposite. But that's not a bad thing…

Yes. Always and never submitting will both cost you your freedom. If you always submit you'll never get to to do anything you want, if you never submit you'll literally go to jail.

But some people might be so submissive by nature that "Never Submit" is good advice for them, because in those situations where they really should submit it will never even occur to them not to.

Re: Why I Quit Being So Accommodating (1922)

#320

Post by bobbington »

throwanem wrote: post #135
bobbington wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the greatest minds of all time have believed Christianity to be the only framework that works in the world. The materialistic worldview, on the other hand is pitifully inadequate and utterly unable to explain the most basic element of our reality - the existence of our consciousness. While we can point to neurons firing in the brain, there is no materialistic explanation for how that translates into my experi…

Vouched so I can point out that yours is an obsolete line of argument; consciousness can be suspended, yet the organism retain intelligent function, by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Certain lesions and traumas can produce the same or a similar effect, but permanently - Cotard's delusion, for example, in which that part of the mind which calls itself "I" becomes unshakably convinced that it is dead, and…

> consciousness can be suspended, yet the organism retain intelligent function

If what you are saying is true, you have just pointed out that consciousness is separate from brain function, which materialism is unable to explain

>Cotard's delusion

Interestingly wikipedia states that something like 50% of these people also think they are immortal. These people are very confused about their consciousness. However, that doesn't mean that they are not conscious.

>The materialist explanation of conscious experience, then, is quite straightforwardly that it is an epiphenomenon of some kinds of brains but not others, and thus in no way suggests or implies there's any sort of mystical business going on.

Could you please offer some evidence or explanation for how this works? This is completely a conjecture, and there is no known scientific mechanism for how it works. Simply saying "It arises from the brain" is another way of saying that "it arises from material processes", which is merely circular reasoning, unless you can provide some support for it.

Please, if there is any good explanation for how consciousness works, post it here! But simply saying "scientists believe that it arises from matter in the brain" is not a good explanation. My point is that there is not one single good explanation from the materialistic camp for how it works. And actually, given a materialistic worldview, it is literally impossible for consciousness to exist. The reason is because Consciousness has no material component. My perception of pain may perfectly coincide with my neurons firing in my brain. However, my perception of pain is something completely different.

Post reply on HN