The Education of Axel Heyst

Where are you and where are you going?
User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by Ego »

AxelHeyst wrote:
Thu Sep 30, 2021 7:12 pm
e) fuck this noise we're going to go vanlife somewhere nice this winter and then go to Portugal after all.
Forgive my unsolicited opinion but here is where I would go if I were you. Easy bus then ferry to Portugal after the Nov-Mar climbing season.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

Oooo, thank you, putting that on the list. (And there's no such thing as unsolicited advice in my journal! I'll never write about stuff I don't want advice on.)

2Birds1Stone
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 11:20 am
Location: Earth

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by 2Birds1Stone »

If I were a climber like you Alex, I'd be all over that like white on rice.

And yay for Portugal. We may run into each other after all :)

classical_Liberal
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by classical_Liberal »

It's nice to see forum members collaborating on some real-life, mutually beneficial projects.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

@WRC shared this with me from Ryan Holiday in The Obstacle is the Way, and I vigorously agree with it.
Ryan Holiday wrote:Everything we do matters - whether it’s making smoothies while you save up money or studying for the bar - even after you already achieved the success you sought. Everything is a chance to do and be your best. Only self-absorbed assholes think they are too good for whatever their station requires.

Wherever we are, whatever we’re doing and wherever we are going, we owe it to ourselves, to our art, to the world to do it well. That’s our primary duty. And our obligation. When action is our priority, vanity falls away.

An artist is given many diff canvases and commissions in their lifetime, and what matters is that they treat each one as a priority. Each project matters, and the only degrading part is giving less than one is capable of giving. Same goes for us. We will be and do many things in our lives. Some are prestigious, some are onerous, none are beneath us. To whatever we face, our job is to respond with hard work, honesty, helping others as best we can.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

AxelHeyst wrote:
Tue Oct 05, 2021 12:05 pm
I vigorously agree with it.
Challenge accepted! :twisted:
someone wrote: "Your job is important. Please hurry up and wait. Everything is a chance to build your best resume before you move on and climb to a higher salary. Only losers think that not being as productive as you can be is of no consequence. Rest assured that should you die, the job ad for your replacement will post faster than your obituary.

Whatever you're doing, you owe it to your clients, the shareholders, your boss, your teachers, and the sunk costs of spending two decades acing exams to do it well. Always maximize performance. Yours is not to ask why but to do or die. This is why you're paid when others have given up. When you do what you must because you can all other concerns fall away. Be your best and damn the torpedoes.

A consummate professional may hold many different jobs during their career but what defines them is a building coherent resume and how they set everything else aside to focus on the job they're assigned. Your expertise is valued. Silicon Valley ethos dressed up as ancient philosophies is a profitable narrative. Religion is work. Work is religion. Your identity is but your job title. Winners take all.
There's also a theme song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ljFaKRTrI

Sorry, I had to do it. First-world construct-hangups off the starboard bow.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

Heh, good.

My perspective on the Holiday quote, and work ethic, is at a level above w*rk. If you just apply Holiday’s attitude to w*rk, you’re going to do what I did for a decade (workaholism, career identity, etc).

I think his quote has to be applied more broadly to ‘living a good life’. Overdoing w*rk isn’t doing a good job, it’s doing a bad job, just off the other end of the spectrum from being a slacker.

Hustle culture says w*rk matters. Some in the FIRE world say w*rk doesn’t matter, it’s a big scam. Holiday is saying *everything you do* matters, and that includes the relationship between work, family, leisure, society, ER, etc.

W*rk sucks and w*rk is everything are both unhealthy sides of the same coin. Imo.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

Maybe ... how about

Red is defending.
Blue is having.
Orange is doing.
Green is accepting.
Yellow is understanding.
Turquoise is recognizing.

(work in progress, subject for/to debate)

Add: It is however an interesting exercise to recast manifestos using one of these verbs to see what comes out.

RoamingFrancis
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:43 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by RoamingFrancis »

@jacob is this Spiral Dynamics / Ken Wilber stuff? I've been reading him, but have seen red/amber/orange/green/teal/turquoise being used.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

@jacob. Hm. You got me there. I'll respond in a few months (??) when I've read/thought enough to figure out wtf you're talking about (and do the proposed exercise...) :)
--
JMG's new post on the international situation (which is desperate, as usual) made me think that my current efforts to earn informal income is another angle on Income Robustness, as a hedge against the dynamics Greer is talking about (taxes, graft, friction, etc). e.g. 4 sources of formal income might not be as robust as 2 sources of formal income and 1 source of informal income. I'm not going to attempt to turn that into a formula, just interesting to think about.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

Alright I dipped my toe in SD, enough to sort of follow along and maybe defend myself a little. Here we go:

I attribute my upset towards the idea of doing the bare minimum as having Orange shadow work to do. And my compulsion to explain myself comes from a desire to not be incorrectly (imo) pegged as Orange. The clarification I wish to make is that it's not that I think Doing is the most important thing (Orange), but that if one decides to Do a thing, doing it poorly is a bad idea for many reasons (some practical, some ethical). In other words, I don't think Doing is *the* way to do Good, but I'm quite sure that doing Poorly is one way to do Bad.

In essence, I'm aligning myself with Virtue Ethics: to do Good is to fulfil one's Role's excellently, whatever those may be, and not all Roles involve Doing. If you consciously, without coercion, adopt the Role of "employee of company X", then fulfill your consciously adopted duties well.

Edge cases can get fun, though. You might adopt the Role of "Employee of Company X who is actually a radical anarchist whose aim is to perform Soft Sabotage on Company X by doing the bare minimum". If that's truly the case, blessings upon you. But know that that's what you're doing, as part of your strategy for life, not just because you've got a vague chip on your shoulder about Society, Man.

ETA: And I think that's actually part of my point. Knowing what's worth doing well is a question of discernment that is related (even integral) to how to fulfill one's role excellently. Example: I used to be an actual employee of actual company Y. I did a good job, generally. But I was once asked to work on a project in support of an industry that I think shouldn't exist, and I refused to participate in the project. The key here is discernment.

An unreflective Bare Minimum policy towards anything that doesn't stoke you out will, at minimum, lead you to a place where good people won't want to collaborate with you on fun projects, because you have a reputation for doing only the Bare Minimum. For specific example, I'm quite positive that if I had a Bare Minimum policy towards not-my-project work, I wouldn't be the kind of person that Mooretrees would ask to come help with her bus build. And if she screwed up and did ask me anyway, I'm quite positive she'd be pissed at me right now, and rightly so.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Maybe there are some practices that are beneficial if applied to self, but less so if extended to others in covert social contract? For instance, would you feel angry if you fulfilled social contract/role of being a great second date to the best of your ability, but your date didn't?

Also, within the confines of your philosophy, you will have to solve the puzzle of why a self-described slacker such as myself is still on good terms with the vast majority of those with whom she was formerly or currently in contract ;)

OTOH, at Level Maybe Yellow or ???, it is the case, or it has been my post-therapy experience, that doing your own very best while dropping similar expectations for others can be quickest path to emerging with new "higher" perspective, and then you can go back to the slacking :lol:

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

Well, I don't think the date example is a good one, because I'd just assume she wasn't in to me and move on, or assume she was intentionally playing cool (which could be seen as fulfilling her role quite well) in which case I'd keep going because the game is fun. For a different example, if I got the sense that my long-term partner wasn't putting in a similar amount of effort as I into the relationship, I wouldn't get angry but it's definitely time for A Talk. Maybe my expectations are unrealistic, or there are unresolved issues, or they're dealing with personal problems, or whatever. But the realm of intimate partnerships are a whole different ball of wax with different rules, imo.

But, I think my feelings on this don't have much to do with covert or implicit social contracts, just mostly explicit ones. Accepting a position at Company X is an explicit, non-covert contract to show up and do a good job. My deal with Mooretrees is an explicit contract to do a good job on her bus.

Admittedly there are some socially implicit overlaps here though. If someone offers to wash the dishes after I've made dinner for us, I'm going to judge them pretty harshly if they do a terrible job and quit halfway through. Like wtf, I just put in effort to make a nice dinner for us, and there's goo stuck on the forks you just "cleaned". I see that as fundamentally disrespectful, whereas I would NOT have had a problem if they'd just said "thanks!" and left without doing the dishes at all. *Not* working is fine; you didn't feel like doing a thing. That's totally fair. Saying you're going to do something, and then willfully fucking it up, is basically giving the finger to everyone involved and saying "You people aren't worth me putting in the effort to put in a basic level of effort on this. You're beneath me."

So let's get definitional here. I don't have any problem with people who don't work very much, in fact I aspire to more of that myself, I just have a problem with people who do a bad job on purpose when they do choose to work. You might not work very much, but I get the sense that when you show up to your classroom for example, you aren't thinking to yourself "Right, what's the least amount of effort I can put into this and not get fired or yelled at by parents for being such a shitty teacher?"

Another way to put it: I don't care about quantity, I care about quality. And I don't hold others to the standard I judge myself on. A passing grade for others is a pretty low bar. If you show up and put in effort when you choose to do so, and at least *try* to do a good job when you choose to do a job, we're all good.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

AxelHeyst wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 10:53 am
You might not work very much, but I get the sense that when you show up to your classroom for example, you aren't thinking to yourself "Right, what's the least amount of effort I can put into this and not get fired or yelled at by parents for being such a shitty teacher?"
Oh, you'd be surprised! (I was). Consider how many students show up thinking to themselves: "Right, what's the least amount of effort I can put into this and still get an acceptable grade." It's the same on the other side(*). People don't magically change their personality once they graduate. It may change later with maturity as experience force development and expanding the sphere of concern beyond the self.

(*) And so teachers and students come to a more nuanced arrangement. "Eventually the teacher pretends to teach and the students pretend to study... with a few exceptions where the real teaching and the real students intersect." The reason I'm a fan of the Analects is that this issue was resolved 2400 years ago. Still, it's good to be reminded because we grew up to [morally] feel otherwise.

A worse but less frequent attitude is the "How do I maximize my personal return and still get away with it even if it comes with a cost to others". This exists in two forms, namely that one and the much more common "How do I maximize my personal return [being oblivious to the external costs of my behavior]."

It funny (not-so-funny) how the first one is considered sociopathic while the second one is the foundation of our economical system.

Anyway ... I'm wired somewhat similarly having a bit of "1" to my "5". https://www.truity.com/enneagram/person ... fectionist but have likely reached a more cynical position as opposed to an angry position. My "1" is definitely declining as I get older. Having high expectations could easily stem from having high competence in some self-fulfilling circle. The problem is in applying it to other humans (or humanity), where that feedback loop is apparently less common, and then experiencing that in various degrees on the "aversion"-scale. That's not a great state of mind. I'm not sure dialing down expectations is the answer though. Accepting that expectations don't define humans is probably more like it.

theanimal
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by theanimal »

In most jobs, you are notable and considered a good worker not necessarily if you have higher quality work but rather if you show up, do what you're assigned and show at least some effort and initiative. I hold myself to a similar standard as yourself in most things, but with others I try to have 0 expectations and remain surprised and grateful when shown otherwise. I'd be curious to hear when the last time you worked an hourly job? This is where I've seen this behavior most prevalent but I'm sure it's prevalent throughout salary work as well. To illustrate with a few broad examples, there are people who will deliberately work slowly, take extended bathroom breaks and just sit around to wait to do something for a while just because they're "on the clock and getting paid." This stuff isn't rare.

All I'm suggesting is that I think it's ok to have high standards with yourself in most things, but to expect the same of others is a recipe for disappointment. Imagine the different reactions when you change the framing in your example. Expecting someone to do a great job when they volunteer to do something versus appreciating them volunteering at all. Oh, X volunteered to wash the dishes how thoughtful. Versus Oh X volunteered to wash the dishes, but did a shitty job. What an asshole.

If the shitty behavior continues, I'd talk it over with them and if that doesn't work, stop putting myself in similar situations with that person.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by jacob »

The Gervais principle in a nutshell. It's a tough lesson to accept.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Axel Heyst wrote:You might not work very much, but I get the sense that when you show up to your classroom for example, you aren't thinking to yourself "Right, what's the least amount of effort I can put into this and not get fired or yelled at by parents for being such a shitty teacher?"
More like I'm thinking "I wonder if I will get through the day without having to yell for a security guard for backup?" However, for somebody with my temperament, this is a massive improvement over dealing with old rigid grouchy perfectionist engineer types yelling at me because I forgot to fold down the coffee bag 4 times before putting on the binder clip.

Transcript from Texts:

GG: We used to have such fun.
7: Yes. Too bad you are such a rigid asshole.
GG: I will marry you and then you will have great insurance.
7: No. You need to join an anger management support group.
GG: It's just that the things you do annoy me.
7: Then you should bask in the delight of my absence.

I seriously don't know how J on J relationships even work. Must be like porcupines mating.

white belt
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 12:15 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by white belt »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 5:17 pm
I seriously don't know how J on J relationships even work. Must be like porcupines mating.
Well it’s possible you just select for particularly disagreeable or obtuse J’s. Or it’s because they are retired bossy people with too much time on their hands. Or in your mating market that behavior is well tolerated. Or all of the above.

I actually think J on J relationships might be less disfunctional than P on J relationships due to the fact that both J’s will quickly realize compromise is necessary, so it kinda selects for higher functioning/self-aware J’s. If you need to feel like you’re right all the time, then you’re probably going to look for a partner that will put up with that rather than one that will challenge you at every step.

I think J on J relationships also might benefit more from each partner having their own individual “domain” where they can exert J tendencies as needed, so maybe that manifests as separation of duties all the way up to separate properties. Just my 2 cents as a J who has dated other J’s in the past.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@white belt:

That makes sense, because I am definitely an easy-going P, and even I will not share house space with a J again. My sisters told me I am not allowed to date any more engineers and/or any more men who think it's okay to tell me their preference for pubic hair grooming on short acquaintance.

AxelHeyst
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The Education of Axel Heyst

Post by AxelHeyst »

I'm familiar with the Gervais Principle, and I think it explains many (if not most) companies well. But it's a Principle, not a Law of the Universe. I'm not against doing the Bare Minimum if someone decides that that's the best strategy when considering their situation using discernment and good judgement; I'm against thinking that the Bare Minimum is the appropriate response for every situation that doesn't serve only one's own purposes. RF's original comment proposed the hueristic "If work is for someone who is not me, then do #bareminimum." I think that's fucked and selfish as it stands. "If work is for EvilCorp, then do Bareminimum" - no problemo from a moral perspective, except that I think it's bad life strategy because there's a danger you'll habituate being a slacker and take that to other inappropriate areas of your life, like when doing dishes at friend's houses. That's pretty much all I'm saying here.

I should have known speaking ill of slacker ethic in a FIRE forum would be like poking a rattlesnake with a stick... :roll:

Post Reply