HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Youtube's algorithm, like it does all the time these days, suggested to watch a random 5 year old video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM (more relevant parts to the article begin from ~5:00, but it's worth watching everything)

I know Slavoj is a polarizing figure, but somehow that video nailed it for me, and IMHO it fits the article.

From my point of view I find it extremely ridiculous that this "cancelling" was decided without the supposed victim's involvement by some third party:

> Joel (who I greatly respect, and consider an asset to the data science community) was not involved in NumFOCUS’s action, was not told about it, and did not support it.

⬐ howlgarnish

"Offense by proxy" is the way it works these days. If anybody is offended by anything you say or do, you are by definition guilty of causing offense, regardless of whether your remark was intended as offensive or even directed at that person.

Actual case from a Silicon Valley company: person X admiringly notes that a transgender fashion model (shown in a picture in a news article, not employed at the company or otherwise involved in any way) passes so well that she looks like a "real woman". Person Y, who is not transgender, takes this to imply that transgender women are not "real women" and reports the remark to HR, and X is very nearly fired as a result.

I heard about Ariely's research a few years ago and found it very exciting at the time. Now I find it unsettling. I can't help but think that an employer may gain insights from this research in order to undercompensate workers and exploit their psychology. The idea that employers already attempt to cultivate an atmosphere of family at work is deeply troubling.

I think Slavoj Žižek nails it when he describes the contrast between the old-school authoritarian boss and the post-modern boss [0].

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM

⬐ qwrusz

Behavioral Economics is exciting and unsettling.

The research also can be used by employees in order to be overcompensated by their bosses! Likewise it can be used to get faster promotions or increase an employee's chances they are chosen to keep their job vs being among those given pink slips should layoffs ever happen at their employer.

In my experience I have seen more employees discover and utilize insights from behavioral economics to their advantage than I have seen instances of managers using it to exploit their employees. Employees who spend a bunch of time researching best strategies to ask for a raise are often way more prepared for such a meeting than their manager.

After a raise, is the new higher salary "fair compensation"? Or is it now "overcompensation"?...Who knows, there is no right answer to this. That is part of Ariely's point. Things like "fairly compensated" or "under compensated" are really subjective - one should be careful not to apply their own such value statements too broadly. everyone needs to chill and rethink their assumptions.

Also don't worry too much. This stuff mainly only matters at the margins (hence these things are "hidden").

⬐ lucaspiller

Isn't this exactly what startups do now though? Catered lunches, snacks, beers kegs - but probably most importantly making you feel like a team player, part of the family, a "bro" (in a gender-neutral way).

⬐ bduerst

Why is this troubling? Before we had today's military-style old-school authoritarian corporate structure, Artisan guild economies were very family-like.

It's not under-compensation if the worker is getting more of what they want. Even Žižek says that the authoritarian style assumes that you know what the workers want more than they know themselves, and you're assuming that they want monetary compensation more.

⬐ chongli

The difference with a family-like artisan guild is that the workers themselves own the means of production, unlike today's typical corporate structure. Žižek's stated preference for the in-your-face authoritarian style is underpinned by his Marxist background. He wants the boss to get in your face so that you are better able to rebel against capitalism.

He sees this post-modern soft totalitarian style as far more threatening to the worker's liberty. Like with a cult, a prostitution ring, or organized crime, any situation where a person is convinced that they are part of a family in order to exploit them is dangerous to our free society.

⬐ bduerst

I think there is a difference between identifying and supplying workers with what they know they want (family in the providing sense), with cults, prostitution rings, and organized crime (family in the extortion sense). The former doesn't necessarily mean the latter.

Also, in trade guilds, apprentices and journeyman rarely owned their own means of production.

Political correctness is another great example of how the most (in)tolerant wins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM

⬐ vlehto

A friend of mine is some kind of leader in border patrol. He said that he knows he is in real trouble the moment his dudes stop trash talking him. In most sausage fests it's like this. Offensive remark is actually flattering, as it's completely based on assumption that the receiving party is confident enough to take the joke.

It's at least seemingly male cultural phenomena. Or alternatively women are really really careful about it.

⬐ MollyR

I've noticed this too. I have a couple guy friends.They are really good friends, but they trash talk each other . . . all the time . . . They usually laugh uproariously about it too. If you didn't know them, you'd think they hated each other. It's definitely a different way of social interaction than I have with my friends.