Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Venkatesh Rao ☀️
@vgr
I haven’t read any Byung-Chul Han in the original, but I like the glosses I’ve read. His critiques of “achievement society” etc sound right and help explain a lot of trends I’ve also been paying attention to including quiet quitting, laying flat etc. But one weak area in his thought seems to be what to do about any of it. I think I gave an idea. Everything he critiques can be reduced to pursuit of efficiency over thoroughness. I think the obvious counter-programming is to pursue thoroughness over efficiency. Thoroughness is in some ways the true north of protocols. When you forget that, protocols degenerate to bureaucracy and then to misguided bureaucratic efficiency drives. I think what reactivates quiet-quitting type people is thoroughness. Their exhaustion is a rational reaction to efficiency demands. Thoroughness focus is restorative.
3 replies
5 recasts
14 reactions
rafa (Devcon)
@rafa
I’ve developed an intentional allergy to “efficiency” as a North Star. It’s just not sufficiently durable (it’s too soft? Lacking hardness?) Instead, steadfast investigation and tinkering (maybe related to thoroughness but maybe not quite?) with constant “test in real world with atoms and people” seems to be much more fulfilling and lasting.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
rafa (Devcon)
@rafa
That being said, I think this is something where “thorough efficiency” is still a valid and lasting strategy. It’s the superficial efficiency / productivity as a primary objective? which really seems to collapse under pressure and time.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Venkatesh Rao ☀️
@vgr
I do think tinkering in a tight loop solves for thoroughness more, which is open source philosophy. What creates efficiency pressure in proprietary software is ironically the pressure to polish, package, and “release” a commercial thing. Expectations of paid projects are “finished” in a way, while open source r users join in the journey more. “Thorough efficiency” would be an oxymoron in ETTO principle terms though.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
