Study - more and more young men are playing video games instead of getting jobs

[agent00f]

@agent00f , I believe we are not so much in disagreement as we are trying to understand each other. To clarify some things:
1. I was not calling Freud's work psycho-synthesis. I was pointing out that he fought against psycho-synthesis as a way of clarifying what analysis is not.
2. PDM vs DSM vs ICD-10 vs whatever is irrelevant here, though there is likely some case conceptualization that is at least mentally constructed as a tool of the analyst.
3. Modern analysts likely use some combination of ego-psychology, self-psychology, object relations, etc. in their work. Again, the point is not which theory of mind is correct but that some exists in order to facilitate the analytic process.
4. I do not inherently disagree with your comparison, but I will say that inherently the mind is not swimming. Figuring out the mechanics of swimming and physics of water does not confer change itself. No human being can explore their mind however without things changing -- independent of any explicit or conscious attempt to do so.

I would point out I've learned through rather empirical exploration that the mechanics of physical or mental or metacognitive activities aren't so different. Let's say for example the activity isn't swimming but playing chess, whose distance to figuring relationships is closer; and there are surely many even closer examples.

The ladder of skill level for any challenging activity is steep and long; it's rather indicative of an undeveloped field when the rungs or even how to measure them are not so clearly established. This is actually a blessing in disguise for more curious explorers.

 

[agent00f]

Our labor problem can be summed by 2 realizations:
1. Employers insufficiently seek to understand and address the needs and values of the employee
2. Employees insufficiently seek to understand and address the needs and values of the employer

If you endeavor to explore realization #2 instead of assuming it invalidates realization #1, I suspect your views on this subject will change dramatically.

Our culture equates power to narcissim and threat and lack of caring and wealth. Honestly, who wants an employee that automatically views you as someone who cares about themselves only and has the resources to pay you well but instead hoards them?

The pay scale in most workplaces is relatively rigid and set to the lowest common denominator capable of filling some role. I've had the fortune of working with some pretty smart and even quite well paid people in supposedly "creative" fields, and almost none are ever given much opportunity to use those abilities to more than peddling the status quo. The fast risers to some position of decision making instead tend to posses more social cunning than actual genius.

More astute observers have commented on these curious phenomena in the past, and despite their own smarts tend to accept it as part of the human condition.

 

[interchange]

Sometimes people are unable to perceive beyond themselves until they are made to understand the need to do so.

And so what happens after the introduction of phobic stimuli is more important than the presence of the stimulus itself.

Personally I think any anger I demonstrate is a mask for the starvation I feel for an appetite that cannot be satiated.

As far as this topic goes, I don't believe there is anything more to say than that it is horribly sad that our conditions are one where it is quite common for employer and employee not to be united in some goal and the only value for either in working together is material.

It is my experience that, in those moments where the tension of such a mutual dependency and power differential is set aside, everyone wins (employer, employee, and customer).

 

[Moonbeam]

Sometimes people are unable to perceive beyond themselves until they are made to understand the need to do so.

And so what happens after the introduction of phobic stimuli is more important than the presence of the stimulus itself.

Personally I think any anger I demonstrate is a mask for the starvation I feel for an appetite that cannot be satiated.

As far as this topic goes, I don't believe there is anything more to say than that it is horribly sad that our conditions are one where it is quite common for employer and employee not to be united in some goal and the only value for either in working together is material.

It is my experience that, in those moments where the tension of such a mutual dependency and power differential is set aside, everyone wins (employer, employee, and customer).

As I see it there are material desires and material needs and only one of them can be set aside. It seems to me too then that this is why efforts all around have turned their attention to a need for jobs that pay a living wage. I believe that liberal idealism can flourish only when people have food to eat.

 

[interchange]

I am wondering why we prioritize our appetites so. Doesn't seem to be making us happy.

 

[agent00f]

Sometimes people are unable to perceive beyond themselves until they are made to understand the need to do so.

And so what happens after the introduction of phobic stimuli is more important than the presence of the stimulus itself.

Personally I think any anger I demonstrate is a mask for the starvation I feel for an appetite that cannot be satiated.

Learning potentially changes people & how they do in just about every endeavor; whether for example how they move in chess or do algebra-like problems or approach relationships. It just so happens that other endeavors are better developed & understood thus paving the way for standardized approaches. In contrast psychoanalysis is more akin to adults trying these potential challenges late in life, which is different enough from little league as children to demand a different pedagogical approach and expectations.

As far as this topic goes, I don't believe there is anything more to say than that it is horribly sad that our conditions are one where it is quite common for employer and employee not to be united in some goal and the only value for either in working together is material.

It is my experience that, in those moments where the tension of such a mutual dependency and power differential is set aside, everyone wins (employer, employee, and customer).

Of course everything works better if everyone pulls hard together, but the game theory of life involving self-interest often demands differently. For example, the employee who pulls hard is easy to take advantage of.

 

[interchange]

Of course everything works better if everyone pulls hard together, but the game theory of life involving self-interest often demands differently. For example, the employee who pulls hard is easy to take advantage of.

This is quite an excellent point. I will readily stipulate to these rules. Except, I do not see how that paradigm is any different today than in the last 80 years. If we can reach consensus on this, I have something to share that should not disappoint.

 

[agent00f]

This is quite an excellent point. I will readily stipulate to these rules. Except, I do not see how that paradigm is any different today than in the last 80 years. If we can reach consensus on this, I have something to share that should not disappoint.

The eventual results of capitalism were already clear enough back in dickens' days, and it's only through external forces that they are somewhat mitigated. Example of such forces include restrictions on free movement of labor or social stigmas against certain ethnicities which might result in labor shortage against demand; or (natural) resource surpluses which are ephemeral; or robin hood taxes on the rich/welfare policy for the poor.

The world's changed in 80 years. It's simply the law of wages that they go down with increased supply, whether through better education or civil rights or a bigger world. Industry is more advanced so the build-in advantage of land resources is somewhat diminished. And the way competition works in a free market eventually leads to corporatism or similar where self-interests of internal parties readily lead to the conflicting strategies mentioned. For example, it makes no sense for an employee to be loyal or dedicated to a company which hardly rewards it, and likewise for a company to be loyal to typical employees when it's an uncompetitive expense; it's just business as they say.

Sometimes people also tend to look back on the past with rosy reminiscence; the world was never a kind and fair place, just maybe kind or fair for some folks at times.

 

[interchange]

The eventual results of capitalism were already clear enough back in dickens' days, and it's only through external forces that they are somewhat mitigated. Example of such forces include restrictions on free movement of labor or social stigmas against certain ethnicities which might result in labor shortage against demand; or (natural) resource surpluses which are ephemeral; or robin hood taxes on the rich/welfare policy for the poor.

The world's changed in 80 years. It's simply the law of wages that they go down with increased supply, whether through better education or civil rights or a bigger world. Industry is more advanced so the build-in advantage of land resources is somewhat diminished. And the way competition works in a free market eventually leads to corporatism or similar where self-interests of internal parties readily lead to the conflicting strategies mentioned. For example, it makes no sense for an employee to be loyal or dedicated to a company which hardly rewards it, and likewise for a company to be loyal to typical employees when it's an uncompetitive expense; it's just business as they say.

Sometimes people also tend to look back on the past with rosy reminiscence; the world was never a kind and fair place, just maybe kind or fair for some folks at times.

Seems a bit of a sideways answer, but seeing as my wife has just gone into labor it'll have to do.

Let's play a game, @agent00f. You are a good employee at my widget factory. As you know, after costs, we currently make $20 off each widget, $10 of which goes to your salary and $10 goes to me. Now, you've worked here for a couple of years and haven't had a raise. I know that you probably deserve one, so I'll do my best to up your cut to $12. Thing is, times are tough and all that. However, I've got an idea. If we start operating the widget factory at night, costs can do down and I figure we'll get $24 for each widget in return which would help us both. In order to do it, though, you'd need to work a few nights a month to provide coverage and train the new illegals -- I mean workers. No promises on the $ though, just estimates and all. I'll try to get you a raise either way, but it'd sure be nice if you help me out as well.

What say you, @agent00f? I suspect you recognize this dilemma.

 

[agent00f]

Seems a bit of a sideways answer, but seeing as my wife has just gone into labor it'll have to do.

It's meant to provide some perspective of why things are.

Let's play a game, @agent00f. You are a good employee at my widget factory. As you know, after costs, we currently make $20 off each widget, $10 of which goes to your salary and $10 goes to me. Now, you've worked here for a couple of years and haven't had a raise. I know that you probably deserve one, so I'll do my best to up your cut to $12. Thing is, times are tough and all that. However, I've got an idea. If we start operating the widget factory at night, costs can do down and I figure we'll get $24 for each widget in return which would help us both. In order to do it, though, you'd need to work a few nights a month to provide coverage and train the new illegals -- I mean workers. No promises on the $ though, just estimates and all. I'll try to get you a raise either way, but it'd sure be nice if you help me out as well.

What say you, @agent00f? I suspect you recognize this dilemma.

This was inherent to capitalism well before mexicans became a scapegoat for the gop. It's also worth pointing out there's not really any question here, and the story can be replaced by the owner telling labor to work overtime.

 

[interchange]

This was inherent to capitalism well before mexicans became a scapegoat for the gop. It's also worth pointing out there's not really any question here, and the story can be replaced by the owner telling labor to work overtime.

So you agree that we have defined a prisoner's dilemma that has existed from the beginning of capitalism.

 

[bshole]

The pay scale in most workplaces is relatively rigid and set to the lowest common denominator capable of filling some role. I've had the fortune of working with some pretty smart and even quite well paid people in supposedly "creative" fields, and almost none are ever given much opportunity to use those abilities to more than peddling the status quo. The fast risers to some position of decision making instead tend to posses more social cunning than actual genius.

More astute observers have commented on these curious phenomena in the past, and despite their own smarts tend to accept it as part of the human condition.

The absolute most creative people start their own businesses and become rich. If you are working for a company, you may be more creative than your co-workers but you are still much less creative than the people starting successful businesses.

 

[agent00f]

So you agree that we have defined a prisoner's dilemma that has existed from the beginning of capitalism.

Labor organization/cooperation of the prisoners in this case has been on the decline in the past few decades.

The absolute most creative people start their own businesses and become rich. If you are working for a company, you may be more creative than your co-workers but you are still much less creative than the people starting successful businesses.

Starting a business requires capital, a substantial amount for one that has much of any significance. Also, running a business isn't creative work unless your field is business.

 

[bshole]

Labor organization/cooperation of the prisoners in this case has been on the decline in the past few decades.

Starting a business requires capital, a substantial amount for one that has much of any significance. Also, running a business isn't creative work unless your field is business.

No I was talking about people who have world changing ideas and CREATE a business from nothing to sell their idea. For example, the two kids who founded Google and are now billionaires. They got their idea in graduate school. They are on a whole different level of creativity than drones that work for corporate.

 

[agent00f]

No I was talking about people who have world changing ideas and CREATE a business from nothing to sell their idea. For example, the two kids who founded Google and are now billionaires. They got their idea in graduate school. They are on a whole different level of creativity than drones that work for corporate.

Unicorns are a lot easier to identify after the fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

 

[Chaotic42]

It occurs to me that in California we have this medical use of Marijuana being legal. Now then... My daughter has many issues which her pain doctor Rx'd Oxycodone to help with the pain in the past... Now a days she has her medical MJ certificate and purchases this certain type of MJ that contains high levels of CDB or like that and it works. She don't take the Rx stuff anymore but every twice in awhile a Tylenol is needed. If she could work and be drug tested she'd fail but fail using a very legal substance. There is something wrong with that.

I never ordered drug testing in companies I had that authority to do. Either a person could do the job or not. That was good enough for me. Of course there are places that ought to insure 'clean' folks are working there like a hospital and stuff but a construction site.... I'm not too sure it is needed. I accept it is problematic to have a 'doper' wielding a saw or something or climbing on a roof but if the environment is irrelevant then so should the dope test.

Well, it's still illegal federally, though I've got no issues with it being legalized, with testing enforced for certain jobs. Hopefully legalization would allow more research on the beneficial aspects of it and maybe they'd be able to remove the intoxicating parts for patients. This link (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...-use-among-us-adults-doubles-over-past-decade) says that 9.5% of US adults use marijuana, so I don't think that drug testing is destroying the profitability of companies, nor do I think that drug testing would remove such large swaths of the unmarried workforce as the OP claimed.

 

[OverVolt]

It depends on your profession. Pothead lawyer, not so great.

Pothead artist, I can deal with.

The problem is way too many people smoking pot and doing nothing. I really do think it mellows people's motivation down, makes it harder to find the right words, etc. I don't think it really affects their function THAT MUCH but I do think it has effects. Pretty much every drug has similar nuanced effects on personality and people are over-drugged up as it is.

 

[werepossum]

lol this is close to my exact situation, except we're all attending college. Given the option between putting my entire stipend into the bank every year vs spending 80-90% of it on rent, food, utilities, I'll take the former. It's probably inevitable that the USA will end up like most of Europe where it's normal to have families living under the same roof for generations; the world is too populated now.

That I can understand. None of these guys are in school, and seldom leave the house. The one who deals weed (or used to; haven't seen him hiding his stash in the last couple years) did it from his family's home.

It's not our job to care. We are hired to do a task and get paid for it. Anything outside of doing a task or getting compensation for said task can only lead to lower morale and higher turnover.
If an employer does drug testing of any kind, it's assumed they have zero interest in running a profitable business. I worked at a paint store where the new, younger manager (son of the owner) thought it would be a good idea to get people to stop smoking cigarettes, so he didn't allow the employees to smoke anywhere on the company property, and he was a dick about employees walking off the property to smoke. Within 6 months, half of our senior people were gone. We lost the color matching guy, we lost the warehouse manager, and we lost 2 of the forklift operators. I started doing some of the forklift stuff, but I was definitely slower than the people who had more than a decade of experience operating a lift. I ended up quitting that job because the manager is one of those people who gets angry then vents at people, and I'm not going to be yelled at for a $10/h part time job. That was a perfect, textbook example of how not to run a business.

I also had a job as a sign girl at a construction site. If they tested construction people for cocaine, at least half of the concrete guys would be fired. That's not an exaggeration.

Of course it's your job to care. When you take a job, you aren't being hired to "do a task". That's what independent contractors are for. If we hire an employee, we're renting her time and expertise, and we expect her to intelligently work with us to find how she can best serve the company, NOT to figure out how she can do as little outside her "task" as possible. The latter kind of employees are what we term ex-employees. I suspect you are working for either a very large company or more likely, a government entity, as we as consulting engineers have very little down time and have great difficulty finding qualified people.

BTW, I'm surprised that concrete guys aren't drug tested. In the trades, all new hires are tested and regulars are expected to accept random drug tests. That's the very minimum standard, to be clear of mind.

Also BTW, I attending engineering school with a very personable, very intelligent, and very beautiful young lady who had the exact same experience with her BS in Chemistry. She found that even she could not find a decent job with it, so she was going back to college to get her chemical engineering degree as that was what the good jobs required. And as a public service, I offer nuclear chemistry. I know a man who is a nuclear chemist, which I would think would have limited job availability. Instead, he's very much in demand and makes tons of money, although he is currently working for a think tank.

If you want to be trapped in hell for the rest of your life, by all means continue. Just quit whining about it.

Um, pretty sure she's an engineer now, so she's not going to be trapped in hell for the rest of her life.

 

[interchange]

Um, pretty sure she's an engineer now, so she's not going to be trapped in hell for the rest of her life.

Makes no difference if she were a doctor. I was not referring to her "success", merely the attitude she expressed toward being a worker, the same one you chastised.

I quote "success" in that sentence to highlight the fundamental error of our society. It is as if people have never bothered to pay attention to how miserable "successful" people often are. Somehow that observation disappears when we imagine how to escape our own misery.